What are your thoughts on this awesome presentation by The Bulgarian History Podcast? I found his narration and storytelling to be superb. And the history of the Bulgarians and their Empire was truly fascinating. For more information on this awesome podcast check out the links in the video description above, to support this channel look below! Become a Patron of The Study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages and make history matter! Join us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/The_Study_of_Antiquity_and_the_Middle_Ages Check out history related merchandise through our affiliate link to SPQR Emporium! spqr-emporium.com/?aff=3 The link above is an affiliate link which means we will receive a small commission from your generous purchases, just another way to support your history channel. Donate directly at our PayPal: paypal.me/NickBarksdale
Population genetic analysis indicated that Conquerors had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5 hizliresim.com/stAHqu (Bulgar genetic proximity) Thus supporting the view that Tatars may be descendents of ancient Bulgars. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22520580/ Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/250688v1.full However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.15.876912v1.full.pdf Most Tatars trace their descent to Volga Bulgars, a medieval Turkic people who have inhabited the Middle Volga and lower Kama region. online.ucpress.edu/search-results?page=1&q=Bulgars from the fifth century BC, well before Bulgars (a Turkic tribe) or Slavs online.ucpress.edu/search-results?q=Bulgars%20a%20tribe&fl_SiteID=1&qb={%22q%22:%22Bulgars%20a%20tribe%22}&page=1 Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920&type=printable Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ Around 4% of Bulgarian genes are derived outside of Europe and the Middle East or are of undetermined origin (by 858 CE), of which 2.3% are from Northeast Asia and correspond to Asian tribes such as Bulgars,[13] a consistent very low frequency for Eastern Europe as far as Uralic-speaking Hungarians. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Bulgarians Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209567/figure/F3/ 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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820 Kubrat (Gk. Kobratos, called Kurt in the Slavo-Turko-Bulgar Imennik or Name-List of Khans, 20, derived from Turkic quvrat ‘to bring together’) Ruler of the *Onoghurs (Ononghundur) *Bulgars (c.605-42/65?). *John of *Nikiu (120, 47) reports that he became a Christian in ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-2674 Utrigurs (Utighurs) Oghur-Bulghar Turkic group, located south-east of the Don River, near the Sea of Azov, and traditional enemies of the related ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-4918 Bolgar, Tatarstan/Russia (Bulgar, Bulgar al-Cadid, Kuybyshev) By the 15th century it was known as Bulgar al-Cadid ‘New Bulgar’ after the Turkic-speaking Volga Bulgars. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191905636.001.0001/acref-9780191905636-e-8397 Bulgars, Turkic, also Proto-Bulgarians, Pra-Bulgarians, a pastoral people, originally living in Central Asia. Swept westward in the great movement of steppe peoples ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195046526.001.0001/acref-9780195046526-e-0850 Kuvrat (Κοβρα̑τος, according to Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 2:161f), khan of the Onogur Bulgars; died after 642. Patr. Nikephoros I mentions his revolt against the Avars and alliance with Herakleios; Kuvrat was granted ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100045529 Kubrat , of the royal Duloclan, ‘lord of the Ononghundur-Bulgars and Kotrags [Kutrigurs?]’ www.oxfordreference.com/search?q=Dulo+clan&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true Originally Asiatic nomads who inhabited the shores of the Black Sea at the end of the 5th century ad but after ad 679 they crossed the Danube and founded a state in the old province of Moesia. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095534628 www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref-9780199534043-e-582 The Volga Tatars live in the central and eastern parts of European Russia and in western Siberia. They are the descendants of the Bulgar and Kipchak Turkic tribes who inhabited the western wing of the Mongol Empire, the area of the middle Volga River. academic.oup.com/mbe/article/27/10/2220/963437 Chuvash is the sole living representative of the Bulgharic branch, one of the two principal branches of the Turkic family. oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/oso/9780198804628.001.0001/oso-9780198804628-chapter-28 In the different classifications proposed so far, there is a wide consensus that the earliest split in the family was between the Bulgharic (also known as ‘Oghuric’) branch, which today only survives in Chuvash, and the Common Turkic branch, which is ancestral to all other contemporary Turkic languages. academic.oup.com/jole/article/5/1/39/5736268 Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I The language of the European Huns is sometimes referred to as a Bulghar Turkic variety in general linguistic literature, but caution is needed in establishing its affiliations. www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4CBA0E2CB74C8093EC1CA38C95067D55/S2513843X20000183a_hi.pdf/_div_class__title__Early_nomads_of_the_Eastern_Steppe_and_their_tentative_connections_in_the_West__div_.pdf In the Hunno-Bulgarian languages /r/ within a consonantic cluster tends to disappear projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf An earlier date for the separation of proto-Turkic, preceding 209 BC would support the identification of Xiongnu language with proto-Bulgharic or one of its subgroups, while a later date of separation would make its association with proto-Turkic more plausible. academic.oup.com/jole/article-pdf/5/1/39/32972809/lzz010.pdf The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.” books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press) Turkish tribes who founded a kingdom (9th-12th century) in the region between the Volga and the Kama. www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/Bulgares_de_la_Volga_et_de_la_Kama/110545 The Bulgars,,Turkish people who were formed on the Don. www.universalis.fr/recherche/l/1/napp/23625 Although the Bulgars were originally a Turkic-speaking people from Asia, they merged with the Slavic tribes whom they conquered in the 7th cent. www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/arts/language/linguistics/bulgarian-language
As the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.[36][24][26][30] The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria 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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820 Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.” books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press) The Volga Bulgars, a Turkish tribe then living on the east bank of the Volga River, ... the laws of Islam to the Bulgars, who had recently converted to the religion. www.bookrags.com/research/ahmad-ibn-fadlan-ued/#gsc.tab=0
Eastern Bulgars , Bulgars Ancient Turkic people originating in the region n and e of the Black Sea. www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/balkan-states Volga Bulgaria was a northeastern European Turkic state that formed during the 9th century and continued into the first four decades of the 13th century. www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe009 www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-slavic-languages-and-linguistics-online/*-COM_031941 referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/bulghars-COM_23726 www.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-Bulgar+languages encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars www.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgar encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bolgars encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-bulgarians xn--80ad7bbk5c.xn--p1ai/en/content/brief-history-suvar-bulgars bulgarizdat.ru/index.php/book1/article1-1 Bulgars, Eastern bŭl´gärz, -gərz [key], Turkic-speaking people, who possessed a powerful state (10th-14th cent.) at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama, E European Russia. www.factmonster.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern (Cambridge University Press) books.google.com.tr/books?id=Ylz4fe7757cC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proto+bulgars&source=bl&ots=vvGsuu2J3g&sig=ACfU3U2YuPKKdgVQKhoUi2fyDiC99n4N_Q&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRqIaDlNvmAhWM-yoKHW38DDI4FBDoATAAegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=proto%20bulgars&f=false Population genetic analysis indicated that Conquerors had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5 hizliresim.com/stAHqu (Bulgar genetic proximity) Thus supporting the view that Tatars may be descendents of ancient Bulgars. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22520580/ Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/250688v1.full However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.15.876912v1.full.pdf Most Tatars trace their descent to Volga Bulgars, a medieval Turkic people who have inhabited the Middle Volga and lower Kama region. online.ucpress.edu/search-results?page=1&q=Bulgars Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920&type=printable Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ Caucasus as the first Turkic peoples (Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs) arrived. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Exile www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2849381?journalCode=spc www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2853091?journalCode=spc brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789047423560/Bej.9789004163898.i-492_006.xml
No need to engage with this pan-turkic troll. He and several other are just going around to convince that all the world is turkic. Paid trolls, without reason and sence. About the vidio, good review. If I may few corrections. The title of first Bulgarian rules is not clear till this day. One is certain, though. It was not khan. And also nobody called Bulgarain state ''khaganat'' . otherwise good video, thanks.
Excellent. As a Bulgarian I am flattered by the professionalism of your work. Your deep knowledge of the matter is amazing. Keep up the good work, Gentleman and Ladies. Thank you!
Artur de Sousa Rocha you have quickly become one of my favorite people ;) seriously, thank you for your kind words of support. It means the world to us.
First, these two are never mentioned to be related, let alone brothers. Second, the alphabet that Cyril reformed and 'returned in trend' as I like to say exists at least from the 4th century.
@@0ddpsychxo_327 Every Bulgarian knows it, yes. It's another question if it is true. And we have no historical proof of it being true. There was a preacher Methodius who used some strange letters and there's Cyril who according to the story that is still taught in Solun restored the lost Illirian letters. Nobody at the mentions them as brothers. Besides the biographies that don't even match each other and are most probably fake. Just like nobody mentions slavs or actually anything that would match their migration. Nor do we have proof of the so-called southern, eastern and western slavs being related. In general anything that would even sparkle suspicion of the existence of such people. Our history is full of lies.
Здрасти! I just wanted to say the the Danube Bulgaria isn't the only country to exist in the medieval ages. Another nation which "Withstood the test of time" was Volga Bulgaria, founded by the brother of Asparuh - Kotrag! But it's a great non bias video all around. Поздрави!
Thank you for this! Finally an unbiased view of the history of my country. The history I was taught was dressed in political agendas and it sounded more like propaganda than actual history, also a lot of RUclips history channels downplay Bulgaria's role in history and just simply ignore its achievements. As a Bulgarian poet said "We too gave something to the world". And since this video is in English, I can play it for my British husband so he can learn about my country.
Bulgaria has had a profound influence in the world. If it werent for bulgaria stopping the Arab invasion in 8th century europe would likely be speaking Arabic now. Secondly it created the 2nd most used alphabet in the world. And that was spread not by force like the Latin one but peacefully through monks and books. Note also if it werent for bulgarian john atanassoff's invention of the digital computer we would likely not be on RUclips to begin with.
@@thatisme3thatisme38 spot on. Never mind the digital watch wich the guy that created it came from my village sorry to brag haha. He also created space food for nasa which imo is quite important to. And a Bulgarian born in Austria created the contraceptive pill
Art historian here. I've been asked to teach a general survey of medieval art. It's not my specialty area but I've done it before. However, i have grown tired of the traditional emphasis in medieval European art history on certain major powers (the obvious ones.). So, I'm here to explore the other medieval histories of Europe and see how you narrate them for a general audience. Bulgaria, Hungary, the Avars, the Cumans, the Slavs, the Baltic tribes ... They often get left out of the art historical narratives. The entirety of Eastern Europe has been disadvantaged in undergraduate art historical narratives without good reason. The first and second Bulgarian Empires seem to be serious ommissions, in particular. Thanks for your help in helping me to see how the history can be told.
“Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria.” - (Chr., LXXXIX, 75) The province of Bulgaria, in the time of Vitalian, what does it mean? How long does it take to establish a name for a certain territory? Centuries. Today's books are a bunch of lies , written with a specific purpose.
Bulgaria was one of the three superpowers arround the early 800s to the late 900s a.d.,the other two were the frankish empire and the byzantenes,also bulgarians are famous for destroying the three language dogma wich say the gospel can be preached only in Hebrew,Latin and Greek,Bulgarian was the fourth recognised language,by the western and eastern churches ,...bulgarians had the privilege to listen to preaching in their native language,something that in the west happened 6 centuries later during the reformation,before that the west had only services in latin
In 45 minutes I got more detailed and well rounded information than in a couple of years of school education here in Bulgaria. Obviously we studied the most important rulers and the key battles and events but it's weird how much information and nuance was cut from the school program.
The truth about Turks, Avars Turks, Volga Turks also called Volga Bulgars coming from same ancestors. I am sure it's not tough in education department of Bulgaria. Hard to swallow the reality but good to know it.
Thank you! Now the world would understand why Bulgarian is not a nationality, but a title. Every man, who was led by honesty and goodness is a Bulgarian in his heard.
Totally agree that Bulgarian is a title. A very prestige title. But like every title it comes with its weight and our is to serve God. Most Dedicated nation in service…..
Bulgarian Empire vs. Byzantine Empire: Battle after battle for hundreds of years. Siege after siege for hundreds of years. Exchange of territories for hundreds of years, today at one, tomorrow at the other. Hundreds of thousands of victims on both sides. This weakened these powerful empires and made them weak just when they needed their strength the most. As a result, the Eastern Roman Empire disappeared and Bulgaria was under Ottoman rule for hundreds of years. This has slowed development for centuries. The defeat of the Arabs in 717 and the creation of the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets are examples of what they could achieve with more cooperation.
@@Stefan_trekkie Yes, mostly. What you call thracians is another big question on itself. If we read the contemporary sources the Goths for example would be classified as thracians.
@Jotaro97 the gothic bible was created in what is now bulgaria. There is also some question of whether the Gettae and the Goths were not one and the same. The gettae being the thracian tribe.
Rumen Doychev The Bulgars (also Bolgars, Bulghars, Proto-Bulgarians,[1] Huno-Bulgars[2]) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who flourished in the Pontic Steppe and the Volga basin in the 7th century AD.[3][4] The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. They became known as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, but some researchers say that their ehtnic roots can be traced to Central Asia.[3] During their westward migration across the Eurasian steppe, the Bulgar tribes absorbed other ethnic groups and cultural influences in a process of ethnogenesis , including Hunnic and Indo-European peoples.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Modern genetic research on Central Asian Turkic people and ethnic groups related to the Bulgars points to an affiliation with Western Eurasian populations.[9][10][11] The Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, i.e. Bulgar language of Oghuric branch.[12] They preserved the military titles, organization and customs of Eurasian steppes,[13] as well as pagan shamanism and belief in the sky deity Tangra.[14]
At the time of Boris, the church in the East and the West was both Catholic and Orthodox. The narration should speak of which bishop Boris was seeking authority from, the Pope in Rome or the Patriarch in Constantinople.
Boris Kgan betrayed Turkishness, his ancestors opposed Christianity for years to protect themselves, Boris and Bulgarians became Christians and forgot Turkish customs and traditions.
yes he came in Roman Macedoniae Province as a Tengrist for grabbing territory in the time of ramparting of Roman Empire ! Baptised and took name Mihail in 864 AD in Rome . In 868 Cirilo and Methidius went to Rome too , to take approval for scriptures to be translated on Old Slavic Language , to be used in liturgies . How he managed to be so famous in two years of his Slav speaking and Christianity is miracle !
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.
fakedonian Whatever you say about Bulgarians , you say about yourselves Because you are Bulgarians Brainwashed by Serbian Fascists to hate your own people
Linguistic group ,language, genthicks ,ethnicities ,history ,modern political propaganda are different. And those who cannot distinguish between them cannot make realistic presentation of events. Jamaicans speak English a germanik language but I would not call them Germans from the Caribians or Caribean Afro-Saxons . Peruvians speak Spanish I would not call them Romans from the Andiis. Slavic and Turkick languages does not coincide with ethnicity and genes as it is the case over whole world. Franks were Germanic tribe which founded a state with a majority of Romanized Celts in Gaul, which speaks Latin language French. French are neither Germans, Romans nor Celts but have a connection with them. First Bulgarian rulers left only written in Greek artifacts Madara horse inscription , Omurtag column, Persian inscription and so many as 150 found until today.The language they used there was Greek a few words were not Greek as the title they give themselves and it is ''KANAS IUBIGI'' which is translated ''PRINCE BY GOD" In modern Bulgarian,, KNIAZ OT BOGA""Ït sounds to me closer than HAN. Oversimplification of the history of proto-Bulgarians and assumptions about them are not correct . Turanian and Pan-Slavic propaganda is more political than scientific.Otherwise Americans from USA must be called Germaniks from BigestState in New World. Argentinians Romans from Patagonia and etc. Brazilians Romans from the province of Luzitania settled in Amazonia.When there were big migrations there were no pure races a Slavic speaker from Novgorod district even looksdiffrent from Slavic speaker from South Balkans The difference is as big as Germanic-speaking Jamaikian and Norwegian.
Cyril and Methodius are from Byzantium and went to Moravia, then to the Balaton principality. Their disciples came to Bulgaria fleeing German clergy's persecution in Moravia
Also Kiril and metodii - their father , Lav (Leo) was a relative to boyars family escaped from Bulgaria to Romaya during the time of Malamir or before@@thatisme3thatisme38
I love how all turkish fanaticas call the Bulgarians, a turkish tribe. Im russian , and I'll tell you what my grand grand father said. The Bulgarians are a tribe on their own. Long before the turks or their tribes appeared on the map. They had a county and we probably have some of their origins inside of us also. Bukgars or Bulgarians are Bulgarians. They are not something else. Some went to islam some went to Christianity. But they are Bulgars. Nothing else.
That's right Brother turks are the biggest history thieves of all They think anyone who rode a horse in the steppes ws a turk Read Dr. Zhivko Voynikov "Who are the Ancient Bulgarians or ProtoBulgarians " online He is the greatest authority on Bulgarian origin
Turkic speakers, worship to Tengri, have Turkic names, their brothers in Russia still speak Turkic languages but separated tribe! Well. Reallly intresting.
@@DimitarFCBM Classified by phonetic criteria, Turkic languages are subdivided into a small r-language division, and a large z-division. The latter can again be subdivided into Yakut, the d-section, and y-languages. The r-group is The Ancient Northwestern Division: (I) Volga Bolghar (Volga- Bulgarian or Hunno-Bulgarian). Modem: (2) Chuvash. www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.7.1.34 The origin of the Tatars is subject to debate: are Kazan Tatars descendants of the pre-Mongol Turkic Bulgar people or descendants of the Tatars of the Mongol Golden Horde? www.international.ucla.edu/cnes/article/123623 More than a millenium of contact between Finno-Ugric (Mordvin, Mari and Permic) and Turkic languages (Bulgar-Chuvash and Volga Kipchak) in the Volga-Kama area have produced conditions of multilingualism and mutual linguistic influence. benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.108.23man The endangered Chuvash language is the only living representative of the Bulgar branch, the earliest offshoot of Proto-Turkic (PT), which is in many respects opposed to the Common Turkic (CT) languages. Evidence from Chuvash is of vital importance in reconstructing Proto-Turkic, particularly its phonology. Chuvash represents characteristic features of the Bulgar branch, such as two types of rhotacism (PT *ŕ > CT /z/, Bulg. /r/; PT *δ > Bulg. /r/ with /j/, /d/, /t/ and /z/ in different subgroups of CT), lambdacism (PT *λ > CT /š/, Bulg. /l/), the “Bulgar palatalization” (PT *s- > Bulg. /š-/ and PT *t- > Bulg. /č-/ in certain contexts) etc. (Dybo 2010; Róna-Tas & Berta 2011). These correspondences provide a more complete reconstruction of the Proto-Turkic phonological system. liberalarts.utexas.edu/lrc/extras/ichl/savelyev-crucial-role-of-chuvash-dialects.php The author has shortly surveyed the history of the widening of the term "Bulgar-Turkic phonological criteria". The last summary of the results of research on the Bulgar-Turkic criteria and their chronological validity was made by Lajos Ligeti in his monograph on Turkic-Hungarian linguistic interrelations (1986). In the paper the author has presented several recent Middle Bulgar-Turkic loans of the Volga Kipchak dialects, following Ligeti's criteria: (1) the prothetic y-; (2) the initial š < si/sï; (3) Ancient Turkic -n ∼ Chuvash -m. www.jstor.org/stable/23658336?seq=1 As mentioned above, we find that Chuvash and Volga Bulgar have r and I in positions where the other Turkic languages have z ands respectively: (I) Turkic z = Chuvash r: a) Tk. boz= Chu. pir 'cloth, linen' b) Tk. yiiz= Chu. ier '100' c) Tk. qaz- =Chu. xlr- 'dig' (2) Turkics = Chuvash /: a) Tk. ta'S =Chu. eu/ 'stone' b) Tk. -miS, -mlt (as in altm1s '60'. yetmis '70') =Chu. -ma/, -me/ '10' (asinutmBI'60',iitme/'70') This same rand I in Chuvash and Volga Bulgar, in some other instances also correspond to a Turkic r and /: (3) Turkicr=Chuvashr: a) Tk. kara =Chu. xura 'black' b) Tk. urt = Chu. piirt 'hut, tent' c) Tk. gor- =Chu. kur- 'see' (4) Turkic I = Chuvash /: a) Tk. ba/Jk =Chu. pula 'fish' b) Tk. e/ma = Chu. ulma 'apple' c) Tk. ogul= Chu. Iva/ 'son' prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/51428/021_Winter_99_Therien.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y The Turkic languages are further divided, whether one believes in Altaic unity or not, according to various characteristics, such as geography, or as follows, phonology. The first language to diverge from the rest of the Turkic languages is Chuvash (and Volga-Bulgar, which is either Old-Chuvash, or at some point merged with it), based on it exhibiting r and l where the others have z and s, respectively. For instance, the Bulgar word for 'nine' is taxar, while its cognate in Oguz is toquz. For the purposes of this paper, the r/l - z/S division is the most important, so that with the exception of Chuvash and Volga Bulgar, the Turkic languages will be treated as a whole unit. prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/51428/021_Winter_99_Therien.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y The Proto-Bulgarian language, whose Turkic character is fully proved, was the first Turkic language that came in contact with the language of the Slavs who lived on the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 5th century until the second half of the 7th century, when the peninsula was populated by Proto-Bulgarians. apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LC/article/download/LC.2020.015/25589 In this paper, the Bulgar-Turkic (Late Old Bulgarian = LOB) loanwords of the Proto-Perm ian period of the Perm ian languages are discussed. Contrary to W ichmann (Tschuw. Lehnw.) and others (e.g. Pedotov, 1st. svjazi I -II) only those loans are regarded to be from the Proto-Perm ian period which occur, besides Votyak, not only in the P (= Permyak) dialect of the Zyryan language, b u t also in its northern dialects (Lu., Le., S, Y, Pech., I, Vm., Ud., etc.). real-j.mtak.hu/3483/1/ActaOrientalia_37.pdf The Bulgar-Turkic, or Chuvash loans in the Permian languages fall into three groups: a/ loan-words taken from Middle Bulgarian (= MB) in the Proto-Permian period (20-22 words); b/ MB loan-words in the Permyak (= P) dialect of Syryan borrowed through Votyak mediation (9 words); c/ Chuvash loan-words in Votyak. These words, according to Wicbmann (1903) amount to about 130, but the actual number of the Chuvash elements in Votyak is considerably larger. On the first two groups of loan- *-words see Redei--Rona-Tas (1972, 1975). An up-to-date study of the Chuvash elements in Votyak is still to be done. core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229451472.pdf horse’;Turkic ← Mongolicboro‘grey’:cf.MiddleMongol:Precl.Mo;SH;HYboro;Muq.bora;LMboro~bora;ModernMon-gol: Buryatboro; Khalkhabor; Kalmuckboro; Dagurbor(E); Khamniganboro;Mongolic ← BulgharTurkic *borŏ < bōz‘grey’: brill.com/view/book/9789004390768/BP000002.xml The old Bulgar language has otherwise left only slight traces in Modern Bulgarian. Apart from a small corpus of proper names (for example, Борис “Boris”; Крум “Krum”) and military and administrative titles from the time of the First Bulgarian Empire, only a handful of Bulgar words has survived in Modern Bulgarian. Words which are considered to be almost certainly of Bulgar origin are, for example: бъбрек “kidney”, бисер “pearl”, кумир “idol”, чертог “castle”. Some of these words even spread to other Slavic languages through Old Church Slavonic. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_vocabulary However, while in these examples the source dialect of Old Turkic can be identified with reasonable certainty only as Bulgar Turkic real.mtak.hu/107544/1/062.2016.69.4.3 The Turkic family is fundamentally divided into two distinct branches, known as Bulgar Turkic and Common Turkic, although this division is often not highlighted in the literature, presumably because the Bulgar Turkic branch, although it represents the first historically attested Turkic expansion from Asia to Europe, is survived by a single modern language, Chuvash. www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203645659.ch3 The etymology of three Mari words (činče ’perl’, šaman < šam-an ’tasty’ and šüγar ’grave’) are reconsidered by the author. She argues for the Volga ¬Bulgarian origin of all of them in the light of the new results of research on affricates in West Old Turkic varieties of the Oguric type (named formerly as Bulgar Turkic). In the case of činče ’pearl’ the donor Volga Bulgarian dialectal forms of non-Chuvash type can be reconstructed as *činčü ~ *čünčü ~ *činči and the ¬borrowing can be interpreted as a direct one. In the other two words the Volga Bulgarian donor forms had an initial *ś (Volga Bulgarian *śam, *śükär) but its Mari equivalents with š refer to Kazan Tatar (in the Middle Kipchak period) as the intermediary language. www.researchgate.net/publication/321424110_K_voprosu_ob_otrazhenii_tjurkskich_anlautnych_affrikat_v_volzhsko-bulgarskich_zaimstvovanijach_marijskogo_jazyka_On_the_Reflection_of_Anlaut_Affricates_in_Volga-Bulgarian_Loanwords_of_Mari
@@DimitarFCBM The earliest divergence of the Proto-Turkic language unity is the divi- sion into the ‘Bulgar’ and ‘Common Turkic’, or ‘Standard Turkic’ groups. A number of arguments (the dating of the Old Chinese loans into Proto- Turkic; different glottochronological calculations) force us to place this division into the time space on the boundary of the Christian Age, no later than the 3 rd century .. The only offspring of the Bulgar branch still alive is Modern Chuvash, but the earlier stages of the proper Bulgar phonetic history are still reconstructable on the basis of the data of the early loans from the languages of the Bulgar group into other languages. The Bulgar loans into Hungarian, numbering about 400 words, are the most informative material for this topic. Below are the phonetic features of the Bulgar group compared to the Standard Turkic ones. 1 1) The development of the Proto-Turkic * λ, * lč, * ř into the Proto-Bulgar * l, * lč, * r , (Danube and Volga Bulgar l,
lč > č , r ) but into Standard Turkic * š, * š, * z ;2) The change * s > š in the Proto-Bulgar before the Proto-Turkic * i, * i, * ia ; 3) The lack of the voicing of the PT * t- > ST * d- before voiced obstruents, * λ, * r and * ř ;4) The Bulgar development * -δ- > j in stems containing r, and * -δ- > -r- in other contexts (chronologically, this process will be placed after the 1 The last version of the PT reconstruction we are proceeding from appeared in Дыбо 2007, 5-64.
22 Anna Dybo coincidence of * r and * ř in Bulgar, cf. Chuv. xujъr ‘bark’ < PT * Kaδ Æ ř , ST kad Æ z ); 5) The preservation of the glide initials of the falling diphthongs in Bulgar and their disappearance in ST. The Bulgar loanwords in Hungarian can be divided into two groups. In the first group the assumed appearance of the Turkic prototypes is very close to the Proto-Turkic stage (excluding the ‘Bulgar palatalization’: the change * s- > š- before * i, * ï ). In the second group the prototypes appear to be extremely similar to the prototypes of Danube Bulgar loanwords in the South Slavic languages. So, the first group should be considered among ‘the Pre-Conquest Layer’ (Róna-Tas 1988, 752)-these were the loans oc- curring in the territory of Volga-Kama (or, as A. Róna-Tas now prefers to believe (Róna-Tas 2005, 436-438), Don-Kuban) area (5-7 th centuries ..). The other group of the Bulgar loans in Hungarian are, apparently, the loans from the Danube Bulgar, which were acquired in the territory near present-day Hungary; the adaptation rules for their phonetics in Hun- garian are almost identical to the adaptation rules of early Slavic loans, which appeared in Hungarian in the time period ‘chronologically near to the Hungarian conquest of the Lower Danube region (895-900 ..)’- see Хелимский 2000, 422. www.academia.edu/5055305/Anna_Dybo_Moskva_Bulgars_and_Slavs_Phonetic_Features_in_Early_Loanwords
The battle of Tours was not even close to the 8th century defeat of the arabs by the bulgars. The tours affair was just a raiding party. They were a tenth of the size of the force the bulgars faced and were riding mostly camels....camels....
A very mysterious country I always taught even now. . I don't know anyone that knows anything about this country and its a shame. I've never met a single soul from Bulgaria. All I've ever known about it was that it was a very tight communist country at the time. Even today with their break with its past I'm still none the wiser about anything Bulgarian. It seems as closed as it was in terms of publicity about itself. ✌🏻🇮🇪
I think you just haven’t looked enough. There is much more conversation about Bulgaria nowadays. Nevertheless, I love your country and I’ve been to both parts of the island. Dublin is one of my all time favourite cities. I think we have much in common. Best regards!
Thank you for taking interest in Bulgaria... Ireland is a very beautiful country and the only nation in western world that respects us along side Scotland but that’s cause mainly we have the same national instrument so it makes sense for them to like us.. god bless Ireland very heart warming people
Common, from antiquity until today there always had been connections between lands of Celts and what is Bulgaria today. Few cities including the capital were founded by Celtic tribe Serdi, Sophia started as Serdika en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdi .There was Celtic invasion in Balkans. James David Bourchier is an Irish journalist a friend to Bulgaria buried in Rila Monastiry Bulgaria (a honour given to those who contributed with their life for Bulgarians,the only foreigner who received this honour) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_David_Bourchier . Read what he wrote, in most difficult moments for Bulgarians he stood up . Irish and Bulgarians have a lot in common especially long centuries under foreign suppression , struggles and sacrifices.
Hello,from Plovdiv,Bulgaria.We have stunning nature , just like you,but different.If someone tells me:the thracians were south branch of the celts",I will agreed.I've seen some small "Stonehange" in Southeast part of the country,in diameter 12 meters,although in not good shape.
@@simeongeorgiev852 if I win big in the Euro millions. I would take in your country on my way around the world, might even have a few pints of Bulgarian Guinness in your local with you. Best regards stay safe. ✊☘️
Today many Bulgarians do not know their own history because of Western European propaganda and Russian lies that the Bulgars are a nomadic tribe of Turkish origin. But the Hungarians they know the truth! God bless you brothers. Long live Hungary!
Yordan Lazarov As the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.[36][24][26][30] The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria 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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820 Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.” books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press) The Volga Bulgars, a Turkish tribe then living on the east bank of the Volga River, ... the laws of Islam to the Bulgars, who had recently converted to the religion. www.bookrags.com/research/ahmad-ibn-fadlan-ued/#gsc.tab=0
As the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.[36][24][26][30] The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria 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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820 Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.” books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press) The Volga Bulgars, a Turkish tribe then living on the east bank of the Volga River, ... the laws of Islam to the Bulgars, who had recently converted to the religion. www.bookrags.com/research/ahmad-ibn-fadlan-ued/#gsc.tab=0
Eastern Bulgars , Bulgars Ancient Turkic people originating in the region n and e of the Black Sea. www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/balkan-states Volga Bulgaria was a northeastern European Turkic state that formed during the 9th century and continued into the first four decades of the 13th century. www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe009 www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-slavic-languages-and-linguistics-online/*-COM_031941 referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/bulghars-COM_23726 www.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-Bulgar+languages encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars www.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgar encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bolgars encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-bulgarians xn--80ad7bbk5c.xn--p1ai/en/content/brief-history-suvar-bulgars bulgarizdat.ru/index.php/book1/article1-1 Bulgars, Eastern bŭl´gärz, -gərz [key], Turkic-speaking people, who possessed a powerful state (10th-14th cent.) at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama, E European Russia. www.factmonster.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern (Cambridge University Press) books.google.com.tr/books?id=Ylz4fe7757cC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proto+bulgars&source=bl&ots=vvGsuu2J3g&sig=ACfU3U2YuPKKdgVQKhoUi2fyDiC99n4N_Q&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRqIaDlNvmAhWM-yoKHW38DDI4FBDoATAAegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=proto%20bulgars&f=false Population genetic analysis indicated that Conquerors had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5 hizliresim.com/stAHqu (Bulgar genetic proximity) Thus supporting the view that Tatars may be descendents of ancient Bulgars. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22520580/ Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/250688v1.full However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.15.876912v1.full.pdf Most Tatars trace their descent to Volga Bulgars, a medieval Turkic people who have inhabited the Middle Volga and lower Kama region. online.ucpress.edu/search-results?page=1&q=Bulgars Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920&type=printable Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ Caucasus as the first Turkic peoples (Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs) arrived. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Exile www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2849381?journalCode=spc www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2853091?journalCode=spc brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789047423560/Bej.9789004163898.i-492_006.xml
I noticed a few inaccuracies. The church in the east and the west was both Catholic and Orthodox at the time. These words were a description of the one church. Also, Simeon was defeated by Tomislav on the border of Croatia, the river Drina.
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 Perssian (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 The strategic and economic importance of this juncture is clear: in an age when much long-distance travel was by water, the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers provided a three-way maritime link between Europe, the Near East, and East Asia. The Turkic Bulgars were among the first to benefit “THE KAZAN SCHOOL.” Russian Orientalism: Asia in the Russian Mind from Peter the Great to the Emigration, by David Schimmelpenninck Van der Oye, Yale University Press, New Haven; London, 2010, pp. 93-121. The confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers, to the east, was inhabited by the Bulgars, a Turkic people, and the southeastern steppes by the Khazars, another Turkic people who had formed a strong state in the seventh century, barring alike the westward movement of other nomadic tribes “Russian Expansion in Kievan Times.” Eastward to Empire: Exploration and Conquest on the Russian Open Frontier to 1750, by George V. Lantzeff and Richard A. Pierce, McGill-Queen's University Press, MONTREAL; LONDON, 1973, pp. 21-30. The Bul- gars, a Turkic people, unlike the Slavic Croats and Serbs, moved south ofthe Danube in 679 and soon created a state, in which the numerically small Proto- Bulgarelement in due course became completely assimilated with the Slavic majority “Antecedents and Antipodes.” The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, by IVO BANAC, Cornell University Press, Ithaca; London, 1984, pp. 21-140. The word boyar is of Turkic origin, introduced into the Balkan Peninsula by the Bulgars in the 7th century. As the Turkic -speaking Bulgar conquerors became Slavicized, they joined with the Slavic clan chiefs
“Nobles and Landholders.” East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, by JEAN W. SEDLAR, University of Washington Press, Seattle; London, 1994, pp. 58-83. " Bulgar " originally designated a Turkic -speaking people; now it designates the Slavic-speaking people who assimilated them. “National Symbols and the International Recognition of the Republic of Macedonia.” The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, by Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 1995, pp. 142-184.
While under byzantene occupation 1018-1187 bulgaria was semi-autonomus and the regions were ruled by their bulgarian nobels,only the ruling dynasty and their relatives were moved into anatolia and gave lands and titles not to rebel in bulgaria
Below is the comparison of 3 Turkic languages. "I will give flower to my mother" in English. "Anneme çeçek parneletep" in Chuvash Turkic (Bulgar-Oghur-Hunnic group) "Enieme çeçek birermen" in Tatar Turkic (Bulgar-Kypchak) "Anneme çiçek vereceğim" in Turkish. (Oghuz Turkic group)
Bulgarian,not bulgar.The name Asparuch is a local Thracian name. Similar names described by Roman chroniclers are, Asparis, Asparul, Aspar, Asparina, Isperich..... Are they popular in Asia? I don't think so. The modern continuations of the name Asparuch are Caspar, Gasper .Are they popular in Turkey?
В некоторых древних источниках встречал,что тюрки и славяне -это одно и тоже. Волжских булгар (татар) относят к одному из славных словенских народов. Тогда понятно значения макроэтнонима "славян'. Со алав ан -войско (государство) могучего народа. По всей Европе происходили те же события,что и во Фракии(Болгарии) 7-10веков,но в разное время. Славянские и германские народы носят тюркские имена. Разберитесь без предрассудков.
The origin of religion is mainly psychological. Religion is a human invention resulting from the need for structure and guidance. It has mostly caused division and the creation of different sects, abuse of wealth and authority, and endorsement of oppression, ignorance, conformity, and intolerance.
The sons weren't five. Most Likely two or three. Altsek or Altsiok is an earlier warlord, that latter sources contected with the disintegration of Old Great Bulgaria. Kuber is also unknown, he is connected to Kubrat and Asparukh, because on one of the stone sourcers at the Madara sight, of Tervel states "My uncles in macedonia" or something like that - implying that the bulgars of Kuber who settled there were also connected to the rulling family of the Dulo Clan. They also weren't a small elite, but rather a sizable migration group and not a single tribe. Not to mention, they'd already raided and migrated to the Eastern Roman Empire - Zabergan.
@Plamen Stoev С арабите сключват примирие, до колкото си спомням, за да могат да се фокусират върху нас. Армията им не се знае колко е била, като модерните историци правят изчисления на базата на извори, данни за това колко войски може да дадат темите, столичната тагма и т.н .
@Plamen Stoev Виж, има много неясноти и не трябва да се залита в крайности. До колкото си спомням, единствените писмени източници, които имаме за нашите деди, при идването им, ги определят в такива малки бройки, а други пък като "многобройни, като песъчинките по бреговете" или нещо подобно. От друга страна, начина по който са се изхранвали, също не предопределя за твърде много, но не и твърде малко, по брой население. Археологията показва че има доста населени места от техен тип. Фактът че ние носим името българи, а не плеадата от другите имена, също е показателен. Така че, макар и да не трябва да се залита в крайности, според мен една стабилна група от 60 000+, не е толкова далеч от реалността. А докато не излязат още нови факти, които или подкрепят или оборват двете крайности, е по добре да сме премерени в нашите мнения.
@@tatarkhan33 he was not a khan, this title was not used by Bulgarian rulers. Though this is just a detail, what I wanted to say is that legitimacy is an unknown factor in this case. It doesn't matter how many sons there were, it matters how many were declared as rule-inheriters.
Cyril and Methodius did not create the bulgarian alphabet. They created the glagolithic which never really took hold and fell into disuse within a few decades. It's in the Preslav literary school that the cyrillic was born with the bulgarian monks Kliment, Naum, Gorazhd, Angelarius they are who created what we call the cyrillic alphabet. Cyril was long dead when this alphabet was created. It appears that Kliment was the central figure in the creation of this alphabet. Great video otherwise apart from this and a few other inaccuracies.
@mamaprudnavchaq 2 it's unclear how much Kliment's contribution is. It is very likely the others had as significant a contribution - i.e. Naum, Gorazhd, Angelarius etc. But it was made in Preslav that is for sure.
@@ssir5927 yes I did not say it was not. But it's not the bulgatian alphabet... But it fell into disuse for most of slavdom in 50 years after it was developed. Looks great but totally impractical alphabet
I'm. Delighted as Bulgarian, to watch a video, from a foreigner, about our History. Im grearful, for you work and interest in to the subject. There is only one thing, that I do not agree, with the video so far, in the beginning, we re not Slavs. We re bulgars, bulgarian, proto-bulgars, but not Slavs. We never drowned into the slavic sea, on that balkans. And for many of us, that's a very important detail. We don't like to be Included into slavs, because we re not ones.
Simeon also known as simeon the great is the first tzar in the sla. World russians adopted it from Bulgaria,as well as the christianity and the cirilic alfabet
@Jotaro97 Propaganda 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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
The title of the Bulgarian ruler was 'canas ubigi', not khan!!! And with Tervel, it became caesar/цар/czar! Krum who established the longest lived dynasty in the First Bulgarian Empire/Czardom also wanted this recognized - the title along with the needed attributes supplied by the Eastern Roman Empire!
@@papazataklaattiranimam this is not true at all it has been disproven and what was proven many times over is that Bulgars and Bulgarians is synonymous we are completely the same the only difference is that modern day Bulgarians also have a significant but not too much genetic descendance from thracians Bulgars were a unique indo European people who impacted the history of Euroasia in a unique way we are ancient and thats a fact you can never lie to fulfill your own agenda truth always wins
Orenda would explain the regicide that happened so often in early Bulgarian history. There’s even speculation that Krum was murdered by nobles after that byzantine ambush because he was allegedly wounded by the attackers.
What you missed to say clearly is the simple fact that the Cyrillic script was made in Bulgaria and first came official in Bulgaria and from Bulgaria it went to the world where now more than 300 mln people use it.
just some scattered steppe tribes formed 2 European empires and defeated the wealthy strong Byzantine Empire and its neighbours in many battles BULGARIA IS A WAR NATION
Aleksandar Kan Byzantine empire was a shadow of its former self by the time the Bulgars showed up. Hundreds of years of pointless wars with Sassanid Persia and several demographically devastating plagues had left the empire very weakened, so by around 700AD the Arabs were able to sweep in and not only conquer Persia, but basically all of the empire’s Oriental territories. The empire was ripe for the plucking really
@@Patrick3183 that is true in big parts but do keep in mind that the roman's war tactics and later on improvement to judicial, military and administrative departments were nothing to sneeze at. Although not as strong as during the Roman empire time or early Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine empire as also known was one of the strongest empires not only in Europe but also the world at that time. When you take into consideration that they managed to hold off and regain at some points territory from arabs and Sassanid empire it shows they were still a military might to be reckoned with. In addition Constantinopol was the biggest trade city in the world for a long time and brought in an enormous wealth that could fund mercenaries and be used in diplomacy (something they did so often throughout their last millennia).
Bulgarians are Thracians wrote Roman historians and plenty of historical sources and Bulgarian folklore and traditions prove that. Slavs do not exist in any historical source and were invented in the 18th century by Russian Empress Catherine the Great for geopolitical reasons. Proto-Bulgarians do not exist in any historical source and were invented in the 20th century. If you show me one source in which is wrote about Slavs before 18th century and that Bulgarians were Turkic and used title Khan before 20th century, I will give you 1000 dollars.
@@stars5206 Thracian tribes occupied these lands long before the Bulgars arrived (most of the tribes were completely absorbed by the time the Roman empire lost these territories) and yes , there might be some Thracian genes mixed up with slavic and early bulgarians which actually formed the nation in its majority.
@Mag last 100 years Bulgaria won the 1878 war from Ottomans Bulgaria won the 1886 war from Serbia Bulgaria won the First balkan war from Ottomans Bulgaria won Romanian front WW1 and partial victory on Macedonian front. also Battles of Doiran 1916,1917, 1918. Bulgaria won the Greek-Bulgarian conflict 1925 Bulgaria doesn't lose WW2, it gained land. Bulgaria won the Czechoslovak war
There are a dozen historical theories on where the Bulgarians actually came from So actually, we don't know almost anything prior to Old Great Bulgaria and 632.
@@birsenganesh2468 Genetic research done 2 years ago by Bulgarians and Italian specialists in the field shows otherwise. It shows that Bulgarians are West EuroAsians which have e unique genetic map which completely excludes the turkic origin theory. Also u can check out Khan Krum the Terrible's painting in the Vatican which dates back to the 9th century. Krum was ethnically ProtoBulgarian from the Vokil dynasty. The painting clearly shows that no mongolic/turkic traits appear on him or the people he's feasting with. U can easily Google it. Please do your research before writing comments. And use facts when making arguments.
Bulgars were tribal group of Turkic origin not different ethnics 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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820 Kubrat (Gk. Kobratos, called Kurt in the Slavo-Turko-Bulgar Imennik or Name-List of Khans, 20, derived from Turkic quvrat ‘to bring together’) Ruler of the *Onoghurs (Ononghundur) *Bulgars (c.605-42/65?). *John of *Nikiu (120, 47) reports that he became a Christian in ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-2674 Utrigurs (Utighurs) Oghur-Bulghar Turkic group, located south-east of the Don River, near the Sea of Azov, and traditional enemies of the related ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-4918 Bolgar, Tatarstan/Russia (Bulgar, Bulgar al-Cadid, Kuybyshev) By the 15th century it was known as Bulgar al-Cadid ‘New Bulgar’ after the Turkic-speaking Volga Bulgars. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191905636.001.0001/acref-9780191905636-e-8397 Bulgars, Turkic, also Proto-Bulgarians, Pra-Bulgarians, a pastoral people, originally living in Central Asia. Swept westward in the great movement of steppe peoples ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195046526.001.0001/acref-9780195046526-e-0850 Kuvrat (Κοβρα̑τος, according to Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 2:161f), khan of the Onogur Bulgars; died after 642. Patr. Nikephoros I mentions his revolt against the Avars and alliance with Herakleios; Kuvrat was granted ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100045529 Kubrat , of the royal Duloclan, ‘lord of the Ononghundur-Bulgars and Kotrags [Kutrigurs?]’ www.oxfordreference.com/search?q=Dulo+clan&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true Originally Asiatic nomads who inhabited the shores of the Black Sea at the end of the 5th century ad but after ad 679 they crossed the Danube and founded a state in the old province of Moesia. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095534628 www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref-9780199534043-e-582 The Volga Tatars live in the central and eastern parts of European Russia and in western Siberia. They are the descendants of the Bulgar and Kipchak Turkic tribes who inhabited the western wing of the Mongol Empire, the area of the middle Volga River. academic.oup.com/mbe/article/27/10/2220/963437 Chuvash is the sole living representative of the Bulgharic branch, one of the two principal branches of the Turkic family. oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/oso/9780198804628.001.0001/oso-9780198804628-chapter-28 Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I The language of the European Huns is sometimes referred to as a Bulghar Turkic variety in general linguistic literature, but caution is needed in establishing its affiliations. www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4CBA0E2CB74C8093EC1CA38C95067D55/S2513843X20000183a_hi.pdf/_div_class__title__Early_nomads_of_the_Eastern_Steppe_and_their_tentative_connections_in_the_West__div_.pdf In the Hunno-Bulgarian languages /r/ within a consonantic cluster tends to disappear projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf An earlier date for the separation of proto-Turkic, preceding 209 BC would support the identification of Xiongnu language with proto-Bulgharic or one of its subgroups, while a later date of separation would make its association with proto-Turkic more plausible. academic.oup.com/jole/article-pdf/5/1/39/32972809/lzz010.pdf
As an introduction, I want to present some ancient sources which speak about Bulgarian people: - Herodotus writes that the Getae are Thracian people. - Strabo writes that the Moesi and the Getae are from the same family and speak the same language. - Cassius Dio writes that the Getae tribe are part of the Scythians. - Procopius writes that the Getae and Sarmatians are from the same origin. - Stephanus of Byzantium claims that the Scythians are Thracian people. V-VI century - Ioannes Malalas: "The so called Achilles went with Atreidai and led his own army of three thousand men, then called Myrmidons and now Bulgarians" - page 97 www.documentacatholicaomnia....raphia_(CSHB_Dindorfii_Recensione),_GR_LT.pdf picture from the text in Greek: facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150315761464099&set=o.122376701166845&type=1&theater - Michael Attaleiates: History - ''the Moesi ... are certainly Bulgarians who later received their new name ... Bulgarians Myrmidons ..." - John Zonaras: ''Paeonians - Latins or Thracian people of Macedonia. These are so-called Paeonians. Paeonians were Bulgarians. " - Johannes Tzetza: ''Pyros and Akamas (native) of the Thracian Hellespont, Maronietza Evfimos son of Treziius, Pirehmie, who was of the Paeonians they were all from the Bulgarians, from those of the river Axios, also called Vardar'' (see photo with Greek text). XI century - ''Bulgarians who are named Thracians according to the previous (old) monuments'' - „Hinc iter aggressi per fines Vulgariorum, quos vocitant Thracas, ut habent monumenta priorum“ - Fulcher of Chartres, a French priest, (a description of the first crusade in 1096) III-IV century - Mavro Orbin cites evidence of Marcus Aurelius Kasiodor that Bulgarians fought with the Romans about 390 AD. - Cassiodorus writes that the Bulgarians are old Moesian or Illyrian people - Ennodius Ticinensis (473-524, Bishop, court historian of the Gothic King Theodoric) indicate that Bulgarians are old Moesian and Illyrian people. - 4th century map (see photo) by St. Jerome (331-420) - Mesia hec & Vulgaria (Misia here and Bulgaria). It is composed by even older maps - Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (270 to 33, called the "father of church history." The map is preserved in a copy of the 12th century. letopisec.blog.bg/photos/123281/original/Karta_Ieronim_4_vek22222.jpg I-II century -Flavius Josephus writes ''Dacians called Bulgarians'' In addition: - Ravennatis Anоnymi Cosmographia: „Inter vero Tratiam vel Macedoniam et Mysiam inferiorem modo Bulgari habitant, qui ex super scripta maiore Scythia egressi sunt.” upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Karte_Ravennat.jpg www.venstar.de/extra/App0003a.bmp - Demetrios Chomateno: Brief Life of Clement Ohridski - ''This great Father was a native from the European Moesians, people usually known as Bulgarians. They were displaced in the old days by the military power of Alexander of placement of Brusa, Olympus to the North Atlantic and the Dead Sea, and after a long time with terrible army crossed the Danube and invaded all the neighboring areas: Pannonia and Dalmatia, Thrace and Illyricum, and and much of Macedonia and Thessaly''
Difference between north Danube tracko-getaes and south Danube tracko-getaes consists the first still speak their ancestors romanic language, while south Danube trscko-..were slavised or turkished. In antiquity people from Volga till Crete spoke a romanic language, while today the some people from south Danube, except illiriens, some macedonians, few serbien, few bulgariend, don't speak the language of ancestors. Their DNA is from Mongolia or Volga, (volgari). Their ancestors from south or north Danube were the East Roman Empire once, today greeks, slaves, turks superposed under that huge romanic originary population, daco-tracko-getae, slavised in Ukraine too, in Serbia, which turks denominate Rumeli till 1878.
@@anutanastase5687 By the end of the 18th century, the inhabitants of Wallachia and Moldova, who were part of Bulgaria until the end of the 14th century, when Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans, spoke Bulgarian and wrote on the Bulgarian writing system Cyrillic until the mid-19th century. The place names and the names of some cities in Wallachia and Moldova are still Bulgarian today. A country called Romania - the name of the Roman Empire first appeared on the map of the world in 1859, but was internationally recognized in 1877 or 143 years ago.
@@stars5206 Propaganda 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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
@@hannibalbarca2928 what proofs do you have that we were Turks? There's no proof of other religion than Christianity at the time, we were building with huge stones which excludes the possibility of borrowing architects, all descriptions contradict those of Turks...
Bulgaria did not win the war against the Croats in 926. He sent an army under duke Alogobotur but suffered a very heavy defeat in the battle of Bosnian Highlands. Bulgaria still had a large force after this so they made peace with no territorial changes in 927 after Simeons death.
The problem is that Bulgarians had states even bigger before their Empires . Also ,Bulgarians did not arrive in the Balkans ,but originated from the Balkans. Bulgarians are forefathers of most of nations in Eurasia ,some in the middle east .
It is not possible that Old Great Bulgaria, as the Roman historians call it, existed for a short time, because then it would not be old and great. Asparukh did not create a new state, but only inherited his father's empire, which lost territories in the east but regained territories occupied by the Roman Empire in the southwest. It is impossible for a state that has collapsed to defeat the Eastern Roman Empire and its 60,000 army. It is obvious that in the war in 679 the empire of Old Great Bulgaria defeated the Eastern Roman Empire.
I knew there was a Bulgarian Empire, but few details about it. Very interesting talk, but difficult to hear, volume is too low. It sounded like one prince was killed by “pneumatic locks”? I doubt I got that one right!
You may not know about this that there is a village just north of Tabriz city (Capital of Southern Azerbaijan =Northwest of Iran)by the name of Isaprakhon!
Don't argue about the origins of a country or people. 70'000 years ago humans where endangered species of about 10k individuals. Even less before that.
Bulgarians are not Turks or Slavs. Some Bulgarians are linguistically Slavonic, some are not. The Russian Alexander Dmitrievich Chertkov (1789-1858) was the first to launch the lie that Asparukh's Bulgarians, who in 680 created a state south of the Danube, were a small horde that the Slavonic tribes assimilated. This outright lie, created by Chertkov in 1842, has been raised by Russian propaganda and dogmatically enforced in historical science in Russia and Bulgaria since 1878. Chertkov was a hereditary nobleman, his national self-esteem growing, especially after the war of 1812. From 1822 Chertkov began to deal with history. He visited Italy and was the first to decide that the Slavonic tribes should be ancient. That is why he began to look for them before the 6th century AD (when they are first mentioned in the sources). Chertkov is the founder of the theory that the Thracians are Slavic. He develops the idea that Thracians emigrating north from the Danube to the Baltic Sea are the future Slavs. Chertkov was the first to present the Old Bulgarian translation of the "Manasses Chronicle" with the notes of the Bulgarian translator, but as a true "gray cardinal" of Pan-Slavism, Chertkov did not hesitate to lie that the Bulgarians were not "numerous" and that the Slavs had assimilated them. Since then, this lie has been repeated in every book on Slavic history, despite the fact that the in the old original text the exact opposite was written, namely that the Bulgarians were “numerous” in comparison to the Slavonic tribes, which were subjugated by Asparukh's Bulgarians. This fact is recorded not only in the Manasses Chronicle, there are other sources about the "numerous" Bulgarians in the year 680. The Bulgarians, as the sources say, were "like the sand in the sea" (a Khazar-Jewish correspondence from the 10th century, which refers to Bulgarians at the end of the 7th century), an "innumerable majority" ("Roman History" (Book 2, 2). Nicephorus Gregoras).
@@papazataklaattiranimam A lot of links a lot of stuff. How can your links explain why these Mongolian/turkic Bulgars lost not just their maternal but their paternal heritage as well? A comparison according to the genetic makeup across all of Europe between Bulgaria and an actual turkic country such as Turkey shows the Asiatic influence in Turkey varies from about 10 to 30 percent while in Bulgaria varies from 1 to less than 2 percent and from 2 to about 2.5 in muslimized Bulgarians such as the Pomaks. These numbers are lower than most of the other Balkan countries. Not that it actually maters as our statistics are relitavly close. Numbers as low as these have no effect on our bodies and are part of what science calls junk dna. The actual reasons why we are called Mongolians or Turkic or Tatars are coming from political or geopolitical reasons. Our ancestors have been here long before the said year of 681or any other linguistic group from the Slavic branch. All the name calling lies will not change the facts. N. Macedonia has been Bulgarian throughout most of our history here and we share a genetic resemblance like no other on the continent. Followed closely by Moldavia and especially by Wallachia. The Cyrillic alphabet or the Bulgarian alphabet was created by our own for our own personal use. The Bulgarian calendar is older than the Chinese and is acknowledged as the most accurate yet. Even if it was for a short while from Poland to the Rus everyone spoke and wrote in Bulgarian and no one has the power to take away or erase our contribution to society.
At 1:52, you mentioned "a long line of states that the Bulgars had established during their centuries-long migration ..." Could you please make a video about those prior states? I can't find any information. I keep hearing about this - what now starts to sound more like a 'myth' because the only time the term "Bulgaria" appears to have been used up to that point is when Kubrat formed the Great Old Bulgaria Khaganate. I have yet to see a detailed account of all these other "long lines of states."
Byzantine this, Byzantine that and Byzantines all over...I admit once in a while to call the Romans (Rhomaioi from the Basileia ton Rhomaion or Romania or Imperium Romanum) 'byzantines' because of the modern distortion of history -intentional or not but still..it's annoying..and false. And there was no Catholic church in 864...there was only Christianity..admittedly the seeds of papal heresy were already there. Other than that it's a nice movie.
Nikos Athanasopoulos The "guy" who built Byzant was anatolien hitits. They built also a temple dedicated to their supreme sun goddess Hepatia. The capital of hitits was Hatusas in middle of Anatolia. The name of their temple was The temple of Holly Mother, in later connection with Hagia Sofia. On the remnants of Byzant Constantin the Great founded The New Rome, but peoe said to this new capital of East Roman Empire, Constantinusa. Probable step by step this Constantinusa became Constantinople. But in Vl century a confusion created in a military confrontation reprezents today the "beginning" of roumanian language, which is in fact a stupid politically document and consists in a following sentence of:" Torna, torna fratre!" This sentence noted in a chronicle it is not at all what the detractors of roumanian language said, but it certainly have represented a military disaster. But speaking roumanian language in proximity of Constantinople in VI century is very important and not at all by happen to be noted.
42:05 "simply too many open areas where foreigners could come in and invade." Isn't this where we started? If we go back to the beginning of the story, isn't this how the first Bulgars entered in the first place? This was an interesting and well-told narrative of 300+ years of wars and successions and new invasions and conquests and victories and losses. But I was curious: how did people live? How did they make their living? What was the life of the many? What were the women doing? Who were the warriors within society? What were the sources of wealth and labor that went into weapons and campaigns? Everywhere and all the time, it just seems to be the known patterns (always with variations) of wars and wars and sieges and the rich and powerful exploiting until some of the weaker rise up to either become the new powerful or be massacred, kings and tyrants trying to hold greedy, backward, back-stabbing nobilities in line, double-crosses breaking peaces and succession struggles among brothers and even a people's religion chosen by the whim or calculation or ambition of one man who's on top for a year. Does it ever end? Is there a way out?
If the topic is interesting to you, try to find information about which tribes opposed Rome for about 200 years, how many attempts they made to liberate their land, why Constantine the Great gave them autonomy without taxes. The truth is quite different from what is imposed.
To all the turks, brainwashed by their imperialistic propaganda, claiming the Bulgars/Bulgarians are of turkic origin. Bulgar and Bulgarian is the same thing. No source before the 18th century says they are different. There is no such thing as "proto-bulgarian", there is no source using that term before the 18th century. Bulgarians have always been Bulgarians. In the 18th century a French and German scholars who never visited the Bulgarian lands made that foolish mistake that the Bulgarians are of turkic origin. After that every scholar claiming that, quoted or repeated their mistakes. The Bulgarian folklore(older than the turks) has nothing to do with the turkic traditions.That is one of the many examples showing that Bulgarians have nothing to do with the turks. If you claim that the Bulgarians are of turkic origin show me real sources before the 18th century. Not works full of mistakes and nonsense made for political aims.
As the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.[36][24][26][30] The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria 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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ... www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820 Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.” books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press) The Volga Bulgars, a Turkish tribe then living on the east bank of the Volga River, ... the laws of Islam to the Bulgars, who had recently converted to the religion. www.bookrags.com/research/ahmad-ibn-fadlan-ued/#gsc.tab=0
Eastern Bulgars , Bulgars Ancient Turkic people originating in the region n and e of the Black Sea. www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/balkan-states Volga Bulgaria was a northeastern European Turkic state that formed during the 9th century and continued into the first four decades of the 13th century. www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe009 www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-slavic-languages-and-linguistics-online/*-COM_031941 referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/bulghars-COM_23726 www.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-Bulgar+languages encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars www.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgar encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bolgars encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-bulgarians xn--80ad7bbk5c.xn--p1ai/en/content/brief-history-suvar-bulgars bulgarizdat.ru/index.php/book1/article1-1 Bulgars, Eastern bŭl´gärz, -gərz [key], Turkic-speaking people, who possessed a powerful state (10th-14th cent.) at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama, E European Russia. www.factmonster.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern (Cambridge University Press) books.google.com.tr/books?id=Ylz4fe7757cC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proto+bulgars&source=bl&ots=vvGsuu2J3g&sig=ACfU3U2YuPKKdgVQKhoUi2fyDiC99n4N_Q&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRqIaDlNvmAhWM-yoKHW38DDI4FBDoATAAegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=proto%20bulgars&f=false Population genetic analysis indicated that Conquerors had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5 hizliresim.com/stAHqu (Bulgar genetic proximity) Thus supporting the view that Tatars may be descendents of ancient Bulgars. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22520580/ Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/250688v1.full However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.15.876912v1.full.pdf Most Tatars trace their descent to Volga Bulgars, a medieval Turkic people who have inhabited the Middle Volga and lower Kama region. online.ucpress.edu/search-results?page=1&q=Bulgars Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars. journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920&type=printable Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/ Caucasus as the first Turkic peoples (Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs) arrived. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Exile www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2849381?journalCode=spc www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2853091?journalCode=spc brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789047423560/Bej.9789004163898.i-492_006.xml
There is actually no evidence the royal bulgar title was "khan". This is just a supposition that has no basis other than opinion of a few early historians which has thereafter been perpetuated with no evidence to back it. Secondly it's highly unlikely the bulgars were nomadic. The bulgars built monumental buildings both in Volga and Danube Bulgaria soon after arriving in these lands. Nomadic tribes do not create buildings like these. The ruins found in what is now Ukraine (the land of Old Great Bulgaria) also shows similar monumental stone construction that is very unsupportive of the nomadic lifestyle theory. Another myth that has been perpetuated over the decades - repeated over and over until it seems like truth.
Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE." Around 4% of Bulgarian genes are derived outside of Europe and the Middle East or are of undetermined origin (by 858 CE), of which 2.3% are from Northeast Asia and correspond to Asian tribes such as Bulgars,[13] a consistent very low frequency for Eastern Europe as far as Uralic-speaking Hungarians.
What are your thoughts on this awesome presentation by The Bulgarian History Podcast? I found his narration and storytelling to be superb. And the history of the Bulgarians and their Empire was truly fascinating. For more information on this awesome podcast check out the links in the video description above, to support this channel look below!
Become a Patron of The Study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages and make history matter!
Join us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/The_Study_of_Antiquity_and_the_Middle_Ages
Check out history related merchandise through our affiliate link to SPQR Emporium! spqr-emporium.com/?aff=3
The link above is an affiliate link which means we will receive a small commission from your generous purchases, just another way to support your history channel.
Donate directly at our PayPal:
paypal.me/NickBarksdale
Population genetic analysis indicated that Conquerors had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
hizliresim.com/stAHqu (Bulgar genetic proximity)
Thus supporting the view that Tatars may be descendents of ancient Bulgars.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22520580/
Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/250688v1.full
However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.15.876912v1.full.pdf
Most Tatars trace their descent to Volga Bulgars, a medieval Turkic people who have inhabited the Middle Volga and lower Kama region.
online.ucpress.edu/search-results?page=1&q=Bulgars
from the fifth century BC, well before Bulgars (a Turkic tribe) or Slavs
online.ucpress.edu/search-results?q=Bulgars%20a%20tribe&fl_SiteID=1&qb={%22q%22:%22Bulgars%20a%20tribe%22}&page=1
Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/
Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920&type=printable
Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/
Around 4% of Bulgarian genes are derived outside of Europe and the Middle East or are of undetermined origin (by 858 CE), of which 2.3% are from Northeast Asia and correspond to Asian tribes such as Bulgars,[13] a consistent very low frequency for Eastern Europe as far as Uralic-speaking Hungarians.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Bulgarians
Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209567/figure/F3/
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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
Kubrat (Gk. Kobratos, called Kurt in the Slavo-Turko-Bulgar Imennik or Name-List of Khans, 20, derived from Turkic quvrat ‘to bring together’)
Ruler of the *Onoghurs (Ononghundur) *Bulgars (c.605-42/65?). *John of *Nikiu (120, 47) reports that he became a Christian in ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-2674
Utrigurs (Utighurs)
Oghur-Bulghar Turkic group, located south-east of the Don River, near the Sea of Azov, and traditional enemies of the related ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-4918
Bolgar, Tatarstan/Russia (Bulgar, Bulgar al-Cadid, Kuybyshev)
By the 15th century it was known as Bulgar al-Cadid ‘New Bulgar’ after the Turkic-speaking Volga Bulgars.
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191905636.001.0001/acref-9780191905636-e-8397
Bulgars, Turkic,
also Proto-Bulgarians, Pra-Bulgarians, a pastoral people, originally living in Central Asia. Swept westward in the great movement of steppe peoples ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195046526.001.0001/acref-9780195046526-e-0850
Kuvrat
(Κοβρα̑τος, according to Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 2:161f), khan of the Onogur Bulgars; died after 642. Patr. Nikephoros I mentions his revolt against the Avars and alliance with Herakleios; Kuvrat was granted ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100045529
Kubrat , of the royal Duloclan, ‘lord of the Ononghundur-Bulgars and Kotrags [Kutrigurs?]’
www.oxfordreference.com/search?q=Dulo+clan&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
Originally Asiatic nomads who inhabited the shores of the Black Sea at the end of the 5th century ad but after ad 679 they crossed the Danube and founded a state in the old province of Moesia.
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095534628
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref-9780199534043-e-582
The Volga Tatars live in the central and eastern parts of European Russia and in western Siberia. They are the descendants of the Bulgar and Kipchak Turkic tribes who inhabited the western wing of the Mongol Empire, the area of the middle Volga River.
academic.oup.com/mbe/article/27/10/2220/963437
Chuvash is the sole living representative of the Bulgharic branch, one of the two principal branches of the Turkic family.
oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/oso/9780198804628.001.0001/oso-9780198804628-chapter-28
In the different classifications proposed so far, there is a wide consensus that the earliest split in the family was between the Bulgharic (also known as ‘Oghuric’) branch, which today only survives in Chuvash, and the Common Turkic branch, which is ancestral to all other contemporary Turkic languages.
academic.oup.com/jole/article/5/1/39/5736268
Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century.
www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I
The language of the European Huns is sometimes referred to as a Bulghar Turkic variety in general linguistic literature, but caution is needed in establishing its affiliations.
www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4CBA0E2CB74C8093EC1CA38C95067D55/S2513843X20000183a_hi.pdf/_div_class__title__Early_nomads_of_the_Eastern_Steppe_and_their_tentative_connections_in_the_West__div_.pdf
In the Hunno-Bulgarian languages /r/ within a consonantic cluster
tends to disappear
projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf
An earlier date for the separation of proto-Turkic, preceding 209 BC would support the identification of Xiongnu language with proto-Bulgharic or one of its subgroups, while a later date of separation would make its association with proto-Turkic more plausible.
academic.oup.com/jole/article-pdf/5/1/39/32972809/lzz010.pdf
The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.”
books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press)
Turkish tribes who founded a kingdom (9th-12th century) in the region between the Volga and the Kama.
www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/Bulgares_de_la_Volga_et_de_la_Kama/110545
The Bulgars,,Turkish people who were formed on the Don.
www.universalis.fr/recherche/l/1/napp/23625
Although the Bulgars were originally a Turkic-speaking people from Asia, they merged with the Slavic tribes whom they conquered in the 7th cent.
www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/arts/language/linguistics/bulgarian-language
Sword of Justice check out this link here, it discusses this very subject.
www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
As the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.[36][24][26][30]
The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria
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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century.
www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I
The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.”
books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press)
The Volga Bulgars, a Turkish tribe then living on the east bank of the Volga River, ... the laws of Islam to the Bulgars, who had recently converted to the religion.
www.bookrags.com/research/ahmad-ibn-fadlan-ued/#gsc.tab=0
Eastern Bulgars , Bulgars Ancient Turkic people originating in the region n and e of the Black Sea.
www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/balkan-states
Volga Bulgaria was a northeastern European Turkic state that formed during the 9th century and continued into the first four decades of the 13th century.
www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe009
www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern
referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-slavic-languages-and-linguistics-online/*-COM_031941
referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/bulghars-COM_23726
www.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-Bulgar+languages
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars
www.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgar
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bolgars
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-bulgarians
xn--80ad7bbk5c.xn--p1ai/en/content/brief-history-suvar-bulgars
bulgarizdat.ru/index.php/book1/article1-1
Bulgars, Eastern bŭl´gärz, -gərz [key], Turkic-speaking people, who possessed a powerful state (10th-14th cent.) at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama, E European Russia.
www.factmonster.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern
(Cambridge University Press)
books.google.com.tr/books?id=Ylz4fe7757cC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proto+bulgars&source=bl&ots=vvGsuu2J3g&sig=ACfU3U2YuPKKdgVQKhoUi2fyDiC99n4N_Q&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRqIaDlNvmAhWM-yoKHW38DDI4FBDoATAAegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=proto%20bulgars&f=false
Population genetic analysis indicated that Conquerors had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
hizliresim.com/stAHqu (Bulgar genetic proximity)
Thus supporting the view that Tatars may be descendents of ancient Bulgars.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22520580/
Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/250688v1.full
However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.15.876912v1.full.pdf
Most Tatars trace their descent to Volga Bulgars, a medieval Turkic people who have inhabited the Middle Volga and lower Kama region.
online.ucpress.edu/search-results?page=1&q=Bulgars
Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/
Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920&type=printable
Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/
Caucasus as the first Turkic peoples (Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs) arrived.
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Exile
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2849381?journalCode=spc
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2853091?journalCode=spc
brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789047423560/Bej.9789004163898.i-492_006.xml
Sword of Justice your link takes me to a bunch of outdated works..... lol brittanica wins
No need to engage with this pan-turkic troll. He and several other are just going around to convince that all the world is turkic. Paid trolls, without reason and sence. About the vidio, good review. If I may few corrections. The title of first Bulgarian rules is not clear till this day. One is certain, though. It was not khan. And also nobody called Bulgarain state ''khaganat'' . otherwise good video, thanks.
I am BUlgarian but grew up in the west so I never learned my country's history much, thank you so much for this awesome video!!!!!
Same story here. Glad I found this channel.
Bulgaria History is Epic my friend!
It is not so true! Alot of Russian influence about slavs here and turkich root!
@@kaloyancholakov3725 i got into it through roman history, really epic
Same here.
Excellent. As a Bulgarian I am flattered by the professionalism of your work. Your deep knowledge of the matter is amazing. Keep up the good work, Gentleman and Ladies. Thank you!
😢 هذا التاريخ يدول انا البربر او الامزيغ كما يوسمهوم اليوم اصلهوم من البغرلية ودخلو الى افريقية. هوما موجدين في العلم.
ا
EXCELLENT VIDEO! Thanks from an American descendant of ethnic Bulgarians from the Balkan subregion of Macedonia!
Same here
Thanks for saying bulgarian from macedonia
Props to you bro but careful saying it that way in front of Macedonians. It could get heated.
Damn you RUclips algorithms for recommending me this masterpiece 2 months after its posting. Amazing job!
Thank you! He did such an excellent job and his knowledge is so wonderful and I really had a blast bringing it to life.
This is quickly becoming the best history channel on RUclips.
Artur de Sousa Rocha you have quickly become one of my favorite people ;) seriously, thank you for your kind words of support. It means the world to us.
I second that statement!
Cyril and Methodious were dead, it was their students that brought the alphabet
They broth the glagolic alphabet. The cirilic was invented in Bulgaria after they arrived and were given government offices by the king.
First, these two are never mentioned to be related, let alone brothers. Second, the alphabet that Cyril reformed and 'returned in trend' as I like to say exists at least from the 4th century.
Rayna Tumbeva dude Cyril and Methodius were literally brothers every Bulgarians knows that
Kliment was the major one
@@0ddpsychxo_327 Every Bulgarian knows it, yes. It's another question if it is true. And we have no historical proof of it being true. There was a preacher Methodius who used some strange letters and there's Cyril who according to the story that is still taught in Solun restored the lost Illirian letters. Nobody at the mentions them as brothers. Besides the biographies that don't even match each other and are most probably fake. Just like nobody mentions slavs or actually anything that would match their migration. Nor do we have proof of the so-called southern, eastern and western slavs being related. In general anything that would even sparkle suspicion of the existence of such people. Our history is full of lies.
Здрасти! I just wanted to say the the Danube Bulgaria isn't the only country to exist in the medieval ages. Another nation which "Withstood the test of time" was Volga Bulgaria, founded by the brother of Asparuh - Kotrag! But it's a great non bias video all around.
Поздрави!
Thank you for this! Finally an unbiased view of the history of my country. The history I was taught was dressed in political agendas and it sounded more like propaganda than actual history, also a lot of RUclips history channels downplay Bulgaria's role in history and just simply ignore its achievements. As a Bulgarian poet said "We too gave something to the world". And since this video is in English, I can play it for my British husband so he can learn about my country.
Bulgaria has had a profound influence in the world. If it werent for bulgaria stopping the Arab invasion in 8th century europe would likely be speaking Arabic now. Secondly it created the 2nd most used alphabet in the world. And that was spread not by force like the Latin one but peacefully through monks and books.
Note also if it werent for bulgarian john atanassoff's invention of the digital computer we would likely not be on RUclips to begin with.
@@thatisme3thatisme38 spot on. Never mind the digital watch wich the guy that created it came from my village sorry to brag haha. He also created space food for nasa which imo is quite important to. And a Bulgarian born in Austria created the contraceptive pill
Art historian here. I've been asked to teach a general survey of medieval art. It's not my specialty area but I've done it before. However, i have grown tired of the traditional emphasis in medieval European art history on certain major powers (the obvious ones.). So, I'm here to explore the other medieval histories of Europe and see how you narrate them for a general audience. Bulgaria, Hungary, the Avars, the Cumans, the Slavs, the Baltic tribes ... They often get left out of the art historical narratives. The entirety of Eastern Europe has been disadvantaged in undergraduate art historical narratives without good reason.
The first and second Bulgarian Empires seem to be serious ommissions, in particular. Thanks for your help in helping me to see how the history can be told.
“Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria.” - (Chr., LXXXIX, 75)
The province of Bulgaria, in the time of Vitalian, what does it mean? How long does it take to establish a name for a certain territory? Centuries. Today's books are a bunch of lies , written with a specific purpose.
Bulgaria was one of the three superpowers arround the early 800s to the late 900s a.d.,the other two were the frankish empire and the byzantenes,also bulgarians are famous for destroying the three language dogma wich say the gospel can be preached only in Hebrew,Latin and Greek,Bulgarian was the fourth recognised language,by the western and eastern churches ,...bulgarians had the privilege to listen to preaching in their native language,something that in the west happened 6 centuries later during the reformation,before that the west had only services in latin
In 45 minutes I got more detailed and well rounded information than in a couple of years of school education here in Bulgaria. Obviously we studied the most important rulers and the key battles and events but it's weird how much information and nuance was cut from the school program.
The truth about Turks, Avars Turks, Volga Turks also called Volga Bulgars coming from same ancestors. I am sure it's not tough in education department of Bulgaria. Hard to swallow the reality but good to know it.
NONSENSE
Do you have PRIMARY SOURCES to prove a Turkic origin for Bulgarians?
Great video! Thanks to you I was able to educate my american husband about the history of Great Bulgaria. THANK YOU!
Awesome documentary, really interesting. Also about the influence they had on Europe and religion. Great work!
Thank you! Now the world would understand why Bulgarian is not a nationality, but a title. Every man, who was led by honesty and goodness is a Bulgarian in his heard.
Amen
Totally agree that Bulgarian is a title. A very prestige title. But like every title it comes with its weight and our is to serve God. Most Dedicated nation in service…..
Thank you, for this exceptional history on a complex time. Interesting and informative!
Will you cover the second empire?
Bulgarian Empire vs. Byzantine Empire:
Battle after battle for hundreds of years.
Siege after siege for hundreds of years.
Exchange of territories for hundreds of years, today at one, tomorrow at the other.
Hundreds of thousands of victims on both sides.
This weakened these powerful empires and made them weak just when they needed their strength the most.
As a result, the Eastern Roman Empire disappeared and Bulgaria was under Ottoman rule for hundreds of years. This has slowed development for centuries.
The defeat of the Arabs in 717 and the creation of the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets are examples of what they could achieve with more cooperation.
Thanks to the creators of this so aducative video❤
You are wrong...
You are really wrong...
It's all excuses like the always - bulgarian way...
This is awesome! Thank you for creating this content.
Very professional
Simeon I took the tittle of Tsar and he is officially the first Tsar in history.
Yes, and Simeon II was the first Tsar _prime minister🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@kirokirov-lu8cs That's true. But a LOUSY one.
Thank you for the incredible documentary!
Great narrative and visualisation!
Most of the latin and greek authors stated that the bulgarians are indigenous to the Balkan peninsula
Tracians ? /Траки/
@@Stefan_trekkie Yes, mostly. What you call thracians is another big question on itself. If we read the contemporary sources the Goths for example would be classified as thracians.
@Jotaro97 Jordanes himself, who else.
@Jotaro97 the gothic bible was created in what is now bulgaria. There is also some question of whether the Gettae and the Goths were not one and the same. The gettae being the thracian tribe.
Makes literally no sense thracians were native to that region and other groups
Great video ! Make one about the Second Bulgarian Empire !
Of Cuman origin
@@pompacitokmakci Sure i dont have problem with that.
@@МаК3т0 👍
@@pompacitokmakci Bulgarian *
@@DimitarFCBM Bulgarian empire of Cuman origin
As a Bulgarian this is very good video.
I loved your documentary! I always love learning about different peoples history.
Hi man, greeting from Bulgaria :-)
Rumen Doychev
The Bulgars (also Bolgars, Bulghars, Proto-Bulgarians,[1] Huno-Bulgars[2]) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who flourished in the Pontic Steppe and the Volga basin in the 7th century AD.[3][4]
The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. They became known as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, but some researchers say that their ehtnic roots can be traced to Central Asia.[3] During their westward migration across the Eurasian steppe, the Bulgar tribes absorbed other ethnic groups and cultural influences in a process of ethnogenesis , including Hunnic and Indo-European peoples.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Modern genetic research on Central Asian Turkic people and ethnic groups related to the Bulgars points to an affiliation with Western Eurasian populations.[9][10][11] The Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, i.e. Bulgar language of Oghuric branch.[12] They preserved the military titles, organization and customs of Eurasian steppes,[13] as well as pagan shamanism and belief in the sky deity Tangra.[14]
@@papazataklaattiranimam are u turk.
@@papazataklaattiranimam
Roach
Moar ! Amazing content
Could you make another video about Second Bulgarian empire
At the time of Boris, the church in the East and the West was both Catholic and Orthodox. The narration should speak of which bishop Boris was seeking authority from, the Pope in Rome or the Patriarch in Constantinople.
Boris Kgan betrayed Turkishness, his ancestors opposed Christianity for years to protect themselves, Boris and Bulgarians became Christians and forgot Turkish customs and traditions.
NONSENSE
1. Give PRIMARY SOURCES that show the name Bulgarian comes from bulgamak?
2.Give PRIMARY SOURCES for Tengrinism in Bulgaria?
yes he came in Roman Macedoniae Province as a Tengrist for grabbing territory in the time of ramparting of Roman Empire !
Baptised and took name Mihail in 864 AD in Rome .
In 868 Cirilo and Methidius went to Rome too , to take approval for scriptures to be translated on Old Slavic Language , to be used in liturgies .
How he managed to be so famous in two years of his Slav speaking and Christianity is miracle !
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.
In two large engagements , the Bulgars crushed the arabs , interesting. I did not know this.
Poorko Poorev first president of Bulgaria.
fakedonian
Whatever you say about Bulgarians , you say about yourselves
Because you are Bulgarians Brainwashed by Serbian Fascists to hate your own people
Linguistic group ,language, genthicks ,ethnicities ,history ,modern political propaganda are different. And those who cannot distinguish between them cannot make realistic presentation of events. Jamaicans speak English a germanik language but I would not call them Germans from the Caribians or Caribean Afro-Saxons . Peruvians speak Spanish I would not call them Romans from the Andiis. Slavic and Turkick languages does not coincide with ethnicity and genes as it is the case over whole world. Franks were Germanic tribe which founded a state with a majority of Romanized Celts in Gaul, which speaks Latin language French. French are neither Germans, Romans nor Celts but have a connection with them. First Bulgarian rulers left only written in Greek artifacts Madara horse inscription , Omurtag column, Persian inscription and so many as 150 found until today.The language they used there was Greek a few words were not Greek as the title they give themselves and it is ''KANAS IUBIGI'' which is translated ''PRINCE BY GOD" In modern Bulgarian,, KNIAZ OT BOGA""Ït sounds to me closer than HAN. Oversimplification of the history of proto-Bulgarians and assumptions about them are not correct . Turanian and Pan-Slavic propaganda is more political than scientific.Otherwise Americans from USA must be called Germaniks from BigestState in New World. Argentinians Romans from Patagonia and etc. Brazilians Romans from the province of Luzitania settled in Amazonia.When there were big migrations there were no pure races a Slavic speaker from Novgorod district even looksdiffrent from Slavic speaker from South Balkans The difference is as big as Germanic-speaking Jamaikian and Norwegian.
The bulgarian need to watch this as many of them don't know their story but you somehow u know it all well done video
he is a postdoc specialized in bulgarian history....
Cyril and Methodius are from Byzantium and went to Moravia, then to the Balaton principality. Their disciples came to Bulgaria fleeing German clergy's persecution in Moravia
The Cirilic alfabet is created 30 years after Kiril dead, from his student. Tsar Boris build a school and sponsored them to create a new alfabet.
The disciples were bulgarian actually.
@@georgiivanov1568 yes, the bulgarian alphabet, witch now everyone calls cyrilic...
@@naidenromanov3050 That is one of the biggest lies about our history cyrillic is bulgarian!
Also Kiril and metodii - their father , Lav (Leo) was a relative to boyars family escaped from Bulgaria to Romaya during the time of Malamir or before@@thatisme3thatisme38
I love how all turkish fanaticas call the Bulgarians, a turkish tribe. Im russian , and I'll tell you what my grand grand father said. The Bulgarians are a tribe on their own. Long before the turks or their tribes appeared on the map. They had a county and we probably have some of their origins inside of us also. Bukgars or Bulgarians are Bulgarians. They are not something else. Some went to islam some went to Christianity. But they are Bulgars. Nothing else.
That's right Brother
turks are the biggest history thieves of all
They think anyone who rode a horse in the steppes ws a turk
Read Dr. Zhivko Voynikov "Who are the Ancient Bulgarians or ProtoBulgarians " online
He is the greatest authority on Bulgarian origin
Българите не са тюрки а иранци
Българите са трако-скити, а иранка е баба ти :)
Their ruler elites are Turkic.
Turkic speakers, worship to Tengri, have Turkic names, their brothers in Russia still speak Turkic languages but separated tribe! Well. Reallly intresting.
I love having some Tuvan throat singers in the background of my intro.
More maps and dates would be nice.
Good pronunciation of the the Bulgarian/Bulgar names! Wonderful video! Thank you! 🇧🇬
Bulgar🇹🇷 is Turkish language
@@pompacitokmakci
Hanim,
Bulgarian is a Slavic language
@@pompacitokmakci proof?
@@DimitarFCBM
Classified by phonetic criteria, Turkic languages are subdivided into a small
r-language division, and a large z-division. The latter can again be subdivided into Yakut, the d-section, and y-languages.
The r-group is The Ancient Northwestern Division: (I) Volga Bolghar (Volga- Bulgarian or Hunno-Bulgarian). Modem: (2) Chuvash.
www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.7.1.34
The origin of the Tatars is subject to debate: are Kazan Tatars descendants of the pre-Mongol Turkic Bulgar people or descendants of the Tatars of the Mongol Golden Horde?
www.international.ucla.edu/cnes/article/123623
More than a millenium of contact between Finno-Ugric (Mordvin, Mari and Permic) and Turkic languages (Bulgar-Chuvash and Volga Kipchak) in the Volga-Kama area have produced conditions of multilingualism and mutual linguistic influence.
benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.108.23man
The endangered Chuvash language is the only living representative of the Bulgar branch, the earliest offshoot of Proto-Turkic (PT), which is in many respects opposed to the Common Turkic (CT) languages. Evidence from Chuvash is of vital importance in reconstructing Proto-Turkic, particularly its phonology. Chuvash represents characteristic features of the Bulgar branch, such as two types of rhotacism (PT *ŕ > CT /z/, Bulg. /r/; PT *δ > Bulg. /r/ with /j/, /d/, /t/ and /z/ in different subgroups of CT), lambdacism (PT *λ > CT /š/, Bulg. /l/), the “Bulgar palatalization” (PT *s- > Bulg. /š-/ and PT *t- > Bulg. /č-/ in certain contexts) etc. (Dybo 2010; Róna-Tas & Berta 2011). These correspondences provide a more complete reconstruction of the Proto-Turkic phonological system.
liberalarts.utexas.edu/lrc/extras/ichl/savelyev-crucial-role-of-chuvash-dialects.php
The author has shortly surveyed the history of the widening of the term "Bulgar-Turkic phonological criteria". The last summary of the results of research on the Bulgar-Turkic criteria and their chronological validity was made by Lajos Ligeti in his monograph on Turkic-Hungarian linguistic interrelations (1986). In the paper the author has presented several recent Middle Bulgar-Turkic loans of the Volga Kipchak dialects, following Ligeti's criteria: (1) the prothetic y-; (2) the initial š < si/sï; (3) Ancient Turkic -n ∼ Chuvash -m.
www.jstor.org/stable/23658336?seq=1
As mentioned above, we find that Chuvash and Volga Bulgar have r and I in positions where the other Turkic languages have z ands respectively:
(I) Turkic z = Chuvash r:
a) Tk. boz= Chu. pir 'cloth, linen' b) Tk. yiiz= Chu. ier '100'
c) Tk. qaz- =Chu. xlr- 'dig'
(2) Turkics = Chuvash /:
a) Tk. ta'S =Chu. eu/ 'stone'
b) Tk. -miS, -mlt (as in altm1s '60'. yetmis '70') =Chu. -ma/, -me/ '10' (asinutmBI'60',iitme/'70')
This same rand I in Chuvash and Volga Bulgar, in some other instances also correspond to a Turkic r and /:
(3) Turkicr=Chuvashr:
a) Tk. kara =Chu. xura 'black' b) Tk. urt = Chu. piirt 'hut, tent' c) Tk. gor- =Chu. kur- 'see'
(4) Turkic I = Chuvash /:
a) Tk. ba/Jk =Chu. pula 'fish'
b) Tk. e/ma = Chu. ulma 'apple' c) Tk. ogul= Chu. Iva/ 'son'
prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/51428/021_Winter_99_Therien.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
The Turkic languages are further divided, whether one believes in Altaic unity or not, according to various characteristics, such as geography, or as follows, phonology. The first language to diverge from the rest of the Turkic languages is Chuvash (and Volga-Bulgar, which is either Old-Chuvash, or at some point merged with it), based on it exhibiting r and l where the others have z and s, respectively. For instance, the Bulgar word for 'nine' is taxar, while its cognate in Oguz is toquz.
For the purposes of this paper, the r/l - z/S division is the most important, so that with the exception of Chuvash and Volga Bulgar, the Turkic languages will be treated as a whole unit.
prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/51428/021_Winter_99_Therien.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
The Proto-Bulgarian language, whose Turkic character is fully proved, was the first Turkic language that came in contact with the language of the Slavs who lived on the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 5th century until the second half of the 7th century, when the peninsula was populated by Proto-Bulgarians.
apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LC/article/download/LC.2020.015/25589
In this paper, the Bulgar-Turkic (Late Old Bulgarian = LOB) loanwords of the Proto-Perm ian period of the Perm ian languages are discussed.
Contrary to W ichmann (Tschuw. Lehnw.) and others (e.g. Pedotov, 1st. svjazi
I -II) only those loans are regarded to be from the Proto-Perm ian period
which occur, besides Votyak, not only in the P (= Permyak) dialect of the
Zyryan language, b u t also in its northern dialects (Lu., Le., S, Y, Pech., I, Vm.,
Ud., etc.).
real-j.mtak.hu/3483/1/ActaOrientalia_37.pdf
The Bulgar-Turkic, or Chuvash loans in the Permian languages fall into three groups: a/ loan-words taken from Middle Bulgarian (= MB) in the Proto-Permian period (20-22 words); b/ MB loan-words in the Permyak (= P) dialect of Syryan borrowed through Votyak mediation (9 words); c/ Chuvash loan-words in Votyak. These words, according to Wicbmann (1903) amount to about 130, but
the actual number of the Chuvash elements in Votyak is considerably larger. On the first two groups of loan-
*-words see Redei--Rona-Tas (1972, 1975). An up-to-date study of the Chuvash elements in Votyak is still to be done.
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229451472.pdf
horse’;Turkic ← Mongolicboro‘grey’:cf.MiddleMongol:Precl.Mo;SH;HYboro;Muq.bora;LMboro~bora;ModernMon-gol: Buryatboro; Khalkhabor; Kalmuckboro; Dagurbor(E); Khamniganboro;Mongolic ← BulgharTurkic *borŏ < bōz‘grey’:
brill.com/view/book/9789004390768/BP000002.xml
The old Bulgar language has otherwise left only slight traces in Modern Bulgarian. Apart from a small corpus of proper names (for example, Борис “Boris”; Крум “Krum”) and military and administrative titles from the time of the First Bulgarian Empire, only a handful of Bulgar words has survived in Modern Bulgarian. Words which are considered to be almost certainly of Bulgar origin are, for example: бъбрек “kidney”, бисер “pearl”, кумир “idol”, чертог “castle”. Some of these words even spread to other Slavic languages through Old Church Slavonic.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_vocabulary
However, while in these examples the source dialect of Old Turkic can be identified with reasonable certainty only as Bulgar Turkic
real.mtak.hu/107544/1/062.2016.69.4.3
The Turkic family is fundamentally divided into two distinct branches, known as Bulgar Turkic and Common Turkic, although this division is often not highlighted in the literature, presumably because the Bulgar Turkic branch, although it represents the first historically attested Turkic expansion from Asia to Europe, is survived by a single modern language, Chuvash.
www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203645659.ch3
The etymology of three Mari words (činče ’perl’, šaman < šam-an ’tasty’ and šüγar ’grave’) are reconsidered by the author. She argues for the Volga ¬Bulgarian origin of all of them in the light of the new results of research on affricates in West Old Turkic varieties of the Oguric type (named formerly as Bulgar Turkic). In the case of činče ’pearl’ the donor Volga Bulgarian dialectal forms of non-Chuvash type can be reconstructed as *činčü ~ *čünčü ~ *činči and the ¬borrowing can be interpreted as a direct one. In the other two words the Volga Bulgarian donor forms had an initial *ś (Volga Bulgarian *śam, *śükär) but its Mari equivalents with š refer to Kazan Tatar (in the Middle Kipchak period) as the intermediary language.
www.researchgate.net/publication/321424110_K_voprosu_ob_otrazhenii_tjurkskich_anlautnych_affrikat_v_volzhsko-bulgarskich_zaimstvovanijach_marijskogo_jazyka_On_the_Reflection_of_Anlaut_Affricates_in_Volga-Bulgarian_Loanwords_of_Mari
@@DimitarFCBM
The earliest divergence of the Proto-Turkic language unity is the divi-
sion into the ‘Bulgar’ and ‘Common Turkic’, or ‘Standard Turkic’ groups. A number of arguments (the dating of the Old Chinese loans into Proto-
Turkic; different glottochronological calculations) force us to place this division into the time space on the boundary of the Christian Age, no
later than the 3
rd
century .. The only offspring of the Bulgar branch
still alive is Modern Chuvash, but the earlier stages of the proper Bulgar
phonetic history are still reconstructable on the basis of the data of the
early loans from the languages of the Bulgar group into other languages.
The Bulgar loans into Hungarian, numbering about 400 words, are the
most informative material for this topic.
Below are the phonetic features of the Bulgar group compared to the
Standard Turkic ones.
1
1) The development of the Proto-Turkic *
λ,
*
lč,
*
ř
into the Proto-Bulgar
*
l,
*
lč,
*
r
, (Danube and Volga Bulgar
l,
lč
>
č
,
r
) but into Standard
Turkic *
š,
*
š,
*
z
;2) The change *
s
>
š
in the Proto-Bulgar before the Proto-Turkic *
i,
*
i,
*
ia
;
3) The lack of the voicing of the PT *
t-
> ST *
d-
before voiced obstruents,
*
λ,
*
r
and *
ř
;4) The Bulgar development *
-δ-
>
j
in stems containing
r,
and *
-δ-
>
-r-
in other contexts (chronologically, this process will be placed after the
1
The last version of the PT reconstruction we are proceeding from appeared in
Дыбо 2007, 5-64.
22
Anna Dybo
coincidence of *
r
and *
ř
in Bulgar, cf. Chuv.
xujъr
‘bark’ < PT *
Kaδ
Æ
ř
, ST
kad
Æ
z
);
5) The preservation of the glide initials of the falling diphthongs in Bulgar
and their disappearance in ST.
The Bulgar loanwords in Hungarian can be divided into two groups. In the
first group the assumed appearance of the Turkic prototypes is very close
to the Proto-Turkic stage (excluding the ‘Bulgar palatalization’: the change
*
s-
>
š-
before *
i,
*
ï
). In the second group the prototypes appear to be
extremely similar to the prototypes of Danube Bulgar loanwords in the South Slavic languages. So, the first group should be considered among
‘the Pre-Conquest Layer’ (Róna-Tas 1988, 752)-these were the loans oc-
curring in the territory of Volga-Kama (or, as A. Róna-Tas now prefers to
believe (Róna-Tas 2005, 436-438), Don-Kuban) area (5-7
th
centuries ..).
The other group of the Bulgar loans in Hungarian are, apparently, the
loans from the Danube Bulgar, which were acquired in the territory near
present-day Hungary; the adaptation rules for their phonetics in Hun-
garian are almost identical to the adaptation rules of early Slavic loans,
which appeared in Hungarian in the time period ‘chronologically near to
the Hungarian conquest of the Lower Danube region (895-900 ..)’-
see Хелимский 2000, 422.
www.academia.edu/5055305/Anna_Dybo_Moskva_Bulgars_and_Slavs_Phonetic_Features_in_Early_Loanwords
The battle of Tours was not even close to the 8th century defeat of the arabs by the bulgars. The tours affair was just a raiding party. They were a tenth of the size of the force the bulgars faced and were riding mostly camels....camels....
A very mysterious country I always taught even now. . I don't know anyone that knows anything about this country and its a shame. I've never met a single soul from Bulgaria. All I've ever known about it was that it was a very tight communist country at the time. Even today with their break with its past I'm still none the wiser about anything Bulgarian. It seems as closed as it was in terms of publicity about itself. ✌🏻🇮🇪
I think you just haven’t looked enough. There is much more conversation about Bulgaria nowadays. Nevertheless, I love your country and I’ve been to both parts of the island. Dublin is one of my all time favourite cities. I think we have much in common.
Best regards!
Thank you for taking interest in Bulgaria... Ireland is a very beautiful country and the only nation in western world that respects us along side Scotland but that’s cause mainly we have the same national instrument so it makes sense for them to like us.. god bless Ireland very heart warming people
Common, from antiquity until today there always had been connections between lands of Celts and what is Bulgaria today. Few cities including the capital were founded by Celtic tribe Serdi, Sophia started as Serdika en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serdi .There was Celtic invasion in Balkans. James David Bourchier is an Irish journalist a friend to Bulgaria buried in Rila Monastiry Bulgaria (a honour given to those who contributed with their life for Bulgarians,the only foreigner who received this honour) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_David_Bourchier . Read what he wrote, in most difficult moments for Bulgarians he stood up . Irish and Bulgarians have a lot in common especially long centuries under foreign suppression , struggles and sacrifices.
Hello,from Plovdiv,Bulgaria.We have stunning nature , just like you,but different.If someone tells me:the thracians were south branch of the celts",I will agreed.I've seen some small "Stonehange" in Southeast part of the country,in diameter 12 meters,although in not good shape.
@@simeongeorgiev852 if I win big in the Euro millions. I would take in your country on my way around the world, might even have a few pints of Bulgarian Guinness in your local with you. Best regards stay safe. ✊☘️
I hope Macedonians starting learning more about their history as well.
thanks for the great video
interesting subject but the imagery is little related. And at least some maps and some dates to accompany it
Orphydian▪History no less related than a typical documentary.
Thank you so much sir 😊
The information of the "Bulgarian - Byzantine Empire"
Today many Bulgarians do not know their own history because of Western European propaganda and Russian lies that the Bulgars are a nomadic tribe of Turkish origin. But the Hungarians they know the truth! God bless you brothers. Long live Hungary!
Yordan Lazarov
As the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.[36][24][26][30]
The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria
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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century.
www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I
The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.”
books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press)
The Volga Bulgars, a Turkish tribe then living on the east bank of the Volga River, ... the laws of Islam to the Bulgars, who had recently converted to the religion.
www.bookrags.com/research/ahmad-ibn-fadlan-ued/#gsc.tab=0
Eastern Bulgars , Bulgars Ancient Turkic people originating in the region n and e of the Black Sea.
www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/balkan-states
Volga Bulgaria was a northeastern European Turkic state that formed during the 9th century and continued into the first four decades of the 13th century.
www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe009
www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern
referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-slavic-languages-and-linguistics-online/*-COM_031941
www.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-Bulgar+languages
xn--80ad7bbk5c.xn--p1ai/en/content/brief-history-suvar-bulgars
bulgarizdat.ru/index.php/book1/article1-1
Bulgars, Eastern bŭl´gärz, -gərz [key], Turkic-speaking people, who possessed a powerful state (10th-14th cent.) at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama, E European Russia.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press.
Cambridge University Press
books.google.com.tr/books?id=Ylz4fe7757cC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proto+bulgars&source=bl&ots=vvGsuu2J3g&sig=ACfU3U2YuPKKdgVQKhoUi2fyDiC99n4N_Q&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRqIaDlNvmAhWM-yoKHW38DDI4FBDoATAAegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=proto%20bulgars&f=false
As the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.[36][24][26][30]
The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria
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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century.
www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I
The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.”
books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press)
The Volga Bulgars, a Turkish tribe then living on the east bank of the Volga River, ... the laws of Islam to the Bulgars, who had recently converted to the religion.
www.bookrags.com/research/ahmad-ibn-fadlan-ued/#gsc.tab=0
Eastern Bulgars , Bulgars Ancient Turkic people originating in the region n and e of the Black Sea.
www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/balkan-states
Volga Bulgaria was a northeastern European Turkic state that formed during the 9th century and continued into the first four decades of the 13th century.
www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe009
www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern
referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-slavic-languages-and-linguistics-online/*-COM_031941
referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/bulghars-COM_23726
www.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-Bulgar+languages
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars
www.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgar
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bolgars
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-bulgarians
xn--80ad7bbk5c.xn--p1ai/en/content/brief-history-suvar-bulgars
bulgarizdat.ru/index.php/book1/article1-1
Bulgars, Eastern bŭl´gärz, -gərz [key], Turkic-speaking people, who possessed a powerful state (10th-14th cent.) at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama, E European Russia.
www.factmonster.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern
(Cambridge University Press)
books.google.com.tr/books?id=Ylz4fe7757cC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proto+bulgars&source=bl&ots=vvGsuu2J3g&sig=ACfU3U2YuPKKdgVQKhoUi2fyDiC99n4N_Q&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRqIaDlNvmAhWM-yoKHW38DDI4FBDoATAAegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=proto%20bulgars&f=false
Population genetic analysis indicated that Conquerors had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
hizliresim.com/stAHqu (Bulgar genetic proximity)
Thus supporting the view that Tatars may be descendents of ancient Bulgars.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22520580/
Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/250688v1.full
However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.15.876912v1.full.pdf
Most Tatars trace their descent to Volga Bulgars, a medieval Turkic people who have inhabited the Middle Volga and lower Kama region.
online.ucpress.edu/search-results?page=1&q=Bulgars
Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/
Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920&type=printable
Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/
Caucasus as the first Turkic peoples (Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs) arrived.
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Exile
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2849381?journalCode=spc
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2853091?journalCode=spc
brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789047423560/Bej.9789004163898.i-492_006.xml
@@papazataklaattiranimam your mom gay
@@papazataklaattiranimam They are not! We are the original indigenous people to this land
@@Smail345 he is "macedonian" pretending to be Muslim and get us angry ,don`t feed the troll, plastic as the Ohrid lake ...
Besides some small incorrect parts, everything is great!
I noticed a few inaccuracies. The church in the east and the west was both Catholic and Orthodox at the time. These words were a description of the one church. Also, Simeon was defeated by Tomislav on the border of Croatia, the river Drina.
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 Perssian (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
The strategic and economic importance of this juncture is clear: in an age when much long-distance travel was by water, the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers provided a three-way maritime link between Europe, the Near East, and East Asia. The Turkic Bulgars were among the first to benefit
“THE KAZAN SCHOOL.” Russian Orientalism: Asia in the Russian Mind from Peter the Great to the Emigration, by David Schimmelpenninck Van der Oye, Yale University Press, New Haven; London, 2010, pp. 93-121.
The confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers, to the east, was inhabited by the Bulgars, a Turkic
people, and the southeastern steppes by the Khazars, another Turkic people who had formed a strong state in the seventh century, barring alike the westward movement of other nomadic tribes
“Russian Expansion in Kievan Times.” Eastward to Empire: Exploration and Conquest on the Russian Open Frontier to 1750, by George V. Lantzeff and Richard A. Pierce, McGill-Queen's University Press, MONTREAL; LONDON, 1973, pp. 21-30.
The Bul- gars, a Turkic people, unlike the Slavic Croats and Serbs, moved south ofthe Danube in 679 and soon created a state, in which the numerically small Proto- Bulgarelement in due course became completely assimilated with the Slavic majority
“Antecedents and Antipodes.” The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, by IVO BANAC, Cornell University Press, Ithaca; London, 1984, pp. 21-140.
The word boyar is of Turkic origin, introduced into the Balkan Peninsula by the Bulgars in the 7th century. As the Turkic -speaking Bulgar conquerors became Slavicized, they joined with the Slavic clan chiefs
“Nobles and Landholders.” East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, by JEAN W. SEDLAR, University of Washington Press, Seattle; London, 1994, pp. 58-83.
" Bulgar " originally designated a Turkic -speaking people; now it designates the Slavic-speaking people who assimilated them.
“National Symbols and the International Recognition of the Republic of Macedonia.” The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, by Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 1995, pp. 142-184.
Coward
Why did you abandon the Turkic Uighurs?
ruclips.net/video/e6bPGl10Cts/видео.html&ab_channel=BBCNews
The theory of the turkic origin of the bulgars is mostly discredited in Bulgaria.
@@ДаниелСпасов-ъ2шturk_ Slav sentezi
While under byzantene occupation 1018-1187 bulgaria was semi-autonomus and the regions were ruled by their bulgarian nobels,only the ruling dynasty and their relatives were moved into anatolia and gave lands and titles not to rebel in bulgaria
Below is the comparison of 3 Turkic languages.
"I will give flower to my mother" in English.
"Anneme çeçek parneletep" in Chuvash Turkic (Bulgar-Oghur-Hunnic group)
"Enieme çeçek birermen" in Tatar Turkic (Bulgar-Kypchak)
"Anneme çiçek vereceğim" in Turkish. (Oghuz Turkic group)
Bulgarian,not bulgar.The name Asparuch is a local Thracian name. Similar names described by Roman chroniclers are, Asparis, Asparul, Aspar, Asparina, Isperich..... Are they popular in Asia? I don't think so. The modern continuations of the name Asparuch are Caspar, Gasper .Are they popular in Turkey?
В некоторых древних источниках встречал,что тюрки и славяне -это одно и тоже. Волжских булгар (татар) относят к одному из славных словенских народов. Тогда понятно значения макроэтнонима "славян'. Со алав ан -войско (государство) могучего народа. По всей Европе происходили те же события,что и во Фракии(Болгарии) 7-10веков,но в разное время. Славянские и германские народы носят тюркские имена. Разберитесь без предрассудков.
The origin of religion is mainly psychological. Religion is a human invention resulting from the need for structure and guidance. It has mostly caused division and the creation of different sects, abuse of wealth and authority, and endorsement of oppression, ignorance, conformity, and intolerance.
Nice work 👍
The sons weren't five. Most Likely two or three. Altsek or Altsiok is an earlier warlord, that latter sources contected with the disintegration of Old Great Bulgaria. Kuber is also unknown, he is connected to Kubrat and Asparukh, because on one of the stone sourcers at the Madara sight, of Tervel states "My uncles in macedonia" or something like that - implying that the bulgars of Kuber who settled there were also connected to the rulling family of the Dulo Clan.
They also weren't a small elite, but rather a sizable migration group and not a single tribe.
Not to mention, they'd already raided and migrated to the Eastern Roman Empire - Zabergan.
@Plamen Stoev С арабите сключват примирие, до колкото си спомням, за да могат да се фокусират върху нас.
Армията им не се знае колко е била, като модерните историци правят изчисления на базата на извори, данни за това колко войски може да дадат темите, столичната тагма и т.н .
@Plamen Stoev Виж, има много неясноти и не трябва да се залита в крайности. До колкото си спомням, единствените писмени източници, които имаме за нашите деди, при идването им, ги определят в такива малки бройки, а други пък като "многобройни, като песъчинките по бреговете" или нещо подобно. От друга страна, начина по който са се изхранвали, също не предопределя за твърде много, но не и твърде малко, по брой население.
Археологията показва че има доста населени места от техен тип.
Фактът че ние носим името българи, а не плеадата от другите имена, също е показателен.
Така че, макар и да не трябва да се залита в крайности, според мен една стабилна група от 60 000+, не е толкова далеч от реалността. А докато не излязат още нови факти, които или подкрепят или оборват двете крайности, е по добре да сме премерени в нашите мнения.
He Was a Khan he had like 50 sons if Putin can have 8 then Kubrat had 50
There’s only one Macedonia the Greek one
The others are Slavs from 200 years ago
@@tatarkhan33 he was not a khan, this title was not used by Bulgarian rulers. Though this is just a detail, what I wanted to say is that legitimacy is an unknown factor in this case. It doesn't matter how many sons there were, it matters how many were declared as rule-inheriters.
Great job!
Turks crying in the comments, I love it
Kids like you yes 😂
Turks and "macedonians" pretending to be turks :)
WOW, just amazing
Cyril and Methodius did not create the bulgarian alphabet. They created the glagolithic which never really took hold and fell into disuse within a few decades. It's in the Preslav literary school that the cyrillic was born with the bulgarian monks Kliment, Naum, Gorazhd, Angelarius they are who created what we call the cyrillic alphabet. Cyril was long dead when this alphabet was created. It appears that Kliment was the central figure in the creation of this alphabet.
Great video otherwise apart from this and a few other inaccuracies.
@mamaprudnavchaq 2 it's unclear how much Kliment's contribution is. It is very likely the others had as significant a contribution - i.e. Naum, Gorazhd, Angelarius etc.
But it was made in Preslav that is for sure.
Glagolitic was used for centuries in Bosnia and Croatia well into the 16th century.
@@ssir5927 yes I did not say it was not. But it's not the bulgatian alphabet... But it fell into disuse for most of slavdom in 50 years after it was developed. Looks great but totally impractical alphabet
I'm. Delighted as Bulgarian, to watch a video, from a foreigner, about our History.
Im grearful, for you work and interest in to the subject.
There is only one thing, that I do not agree, with the video so far, in the beginning, we re not Slavs.
We re bulgars, bulgarian, proto-bulgars, but not Slavs.
We never drowned into the slavic sea, on that balkans.
And for many of us, that's a very important detail.
We don't like to be Included into slavs, because we re not ones.
Thank you for noticing us. Europe gives no credit.
Simeon also known as simeon the great is the first tzar in the sla. World russians adopted it from Bulgaria,as well as the christianity and the cirilic alfabet
Love you guys
We love you! Stay well!
Second Bulgarian empire next
Bulgarian Imperial Mapping
It Founded by Cumans
@Jotaro97
Propaganda
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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
Jotaro97 Bulgars were genetically Turkic not Slavo-Thracian. They have nothing to do with Bulgarians
Distance to: Bulgar
0.11311023 Bashkir
0.11527744 Tatar_Siberian
0.12075092 Uzbek
0.12710239 Turkmen_Uzbekistan
0.12989701 Hazara_Afghanistan
0.13009948 Nogai
0.13324712 Turkmen
0.13469246 Uygur
0.13800402 Hazara
0.14270297 Tatar_Siberian_Zabolotniye
0.14308569 Karakalpak
0.14883822 Yukagir_Forest
0.15485993 Udmurt
0.15744596 Tatar_Lipka
0.15875851 Tubalar
0.16120746 Besermyan
0.16843667 Kazakh
0.17111833 Tajik
0.17150055 Shor_Mountain
0.17202217 Mansi
0.17282107 Shor_Khakassia
0.17287921 Tatar_Kazan
0.17355490 Tlingit
0.17609774 Shor
0.17695017 Chuvash
Nomadic troll
Brother some kids said that Oghurs are not Turks😂😂😂🤣🤣
So para mongols are not mongols according to this logic😂😂
Nomadic troll
Look at those kids 😂😂
The title of the Bulgarian ruler was 'canas ubigi', not khan!!! And with Tervel, it became caesar/цар/czar! Krum who established the longest lived dynasty in the First Bulgarian Empire/Czardom also wanted this recognized - the title along with the needed attributes supplied by the Eastern Roman Empire!
They used both Khanasubigi and Khan both are Turkic titles
@@papazataklaattiranimam not really considering we arent turkic or slavic
@@haunebu421 Bulgarians are Slavic peoples but Bulgars are Turkic peoples
@@papazataklaattiranimam this is not true at all it has been disproven and what was proven many times over is that Bulgars and Bulgarians is synonymous we are completely the same the only difference is that modern day Bulgarians also have a significant but not too much genetic descendance from thracians Bulgars were a unique indo European people who impacted the history of Euroasia in a unique way we are ancient and thats a fact you can never lie to fulfill your own agenda truth always wins
@@haunebu421 Bulgurian fantasy world 🤣🤣🤣
how can a person even dislike this
North macedonians give dislike
@@nenogenov3826 chisti bulgari sa bate nqma kvo da dislaikvat
Inter vero Traciam vel Macedoniam et Mysiam inferiorem modo Bulgari habitant.
Orenda would explain the regicide that happened so often in early Bulgarian history. There’s even speculation that Krum was murdered by nobles after that byzantine ambush because he was allegedly wounded by the attackers.
What you missed to say clearly is the simple fact that the Cyrillic script was made in Bulgaria and first came official in Bulgaria and from Bulgaria it went to the world where now more than 300 mln people use it.
Miss you Nick. 😢❤️
just some scattered steppe tribes formed 2 European empires and defeated the wealthy strong Byzantine Empire and its neighbours in many battles
BULGARIA IS A WAR NATION
Aleksandar Kan Byzantine empire was a shadow of its former self by the time the Bulgars showed up. Hundreds of years of pointless wars with Sassanid Persia and several demographically devastating plagues had left the empire very weakened, so by around 700AD the Arabs were able to sweep in and not only conquer Persia, but basically all of the empire’s Oriental territories. The empire was ripe for the plucking really
@@Patrick3183 that is true in big parts but do keep in mind that the roman's war tactics and later on improvement to judicial, military and administrative departments were nothing to sneeze at. Although not as strong as during the Roman empire time or early Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine empire as also known was one of the strongest empires not only in Europe but also the world at that time. When you take into consideration that they managed to hold off and regain at some points territory from arabs and Sassanid empire it shows they were still a military might to be reckoned with. In addition Constantinopol was the biggest trade city in the world for a long time and brought in an enormous wealth that could fund mercenaries and be used in diplomacy (something they did so often throughout their last millennia).
Bulgarians are Thracians wrote Roman historians and plenty of historical sources and Bulgarian folklore and traditions prove that. Slavs do not exist in any historical source and were invented in the 18th century by Russian Empress Catherine the Great for geopolitical reasons. Proto-Bulgarians do not exist in any historical source and were invented in the 20th century. If you show me one source in which is wrote about Slavs before 18th century and that Bulgarians were Turkic and used title Khan before 20th century, I will give you 1000 dollars.
@@stars5206 Thracian tribes occupied these lands long before the Bulgars arrived (most of the tribes were completely absorbed by the time the Roman empire lost these territories) and yes , there might be some Thracian genes mixed up with slavic and early bulgarians which actually formed the nation in its majority.
@Mag last 100 years
Bulgaria won the 1878 war from Ottomans
Bulgaria won the 1886 war from Serbia
Bulgaria won the First balkan war from Ottomans
Bulgaria won Romanian front WW1
and partial victory on Macedonian front.
also Battles of Doiran 1916,1917, 1918.
Bulgaria won the Greek-Bulgarian conflict 1925
Bulgaria doesn't lose WW2, it gained land.
Bulgaria won the Czechoslovak war
There are a dozen historical theories on where the Bulgarians actually came from
So actually, we don't know almost anything prior to Old Great Bulgaria and 632.
Volga Turks called Volga Bulgars are the same clan. Hard to swallow it but it is the ultimate truth.
@@birsenganesh2468
Genetic research done 2 years ago by Bulgarians and Italian specialists in the field shows otherwise.
It shows that Bulgarians are West EuroAsians which have e unique genetic map which completely excludes the turkic origin theory.
Also u can check out Khan Krum the Terrible's painting in the Vatican which dates back to the 9th century. Krum was ethnically ProtoBulgarian from the Vokil dynasty. The painting clearly shows that no mongolic/turkic traits appear on him or the people he's feasting with. U can easily Google it.
Please do your research before writing comments. And use facts when making arguments.
Awesome video! One small correction, the Bulgars were not "a tribe" but a confederation of several tribes, perhaps even of different ethnic origin
Bulgars were tribal group of Turkic origin not different ethnics
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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
Kubrat (Gk. Kobratos, called Kurt in the Slavo-Turko-Bulgar Imennik or Name-List of Khans, 20, derived from Turkic quvrat ‘to bring together’)
Ruler of the *Onoghurs (Ononghundur) *Bulgars (c.605-42/65?). *John of *Nikiu (120, 47) reports that he became a Christian in ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-2674
Utrigurs (Utighurs)
Oghur-Bulghar Turkic group, located south-east of the Don River, near the Sea of Azov, and traditional enemies of the related ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-4918
Bolgar, Tatarstan/Russia (Bulgar, Bulgar al-Cadid, Kuybyshev)
By the 15th century it was known as Bulgar al-Cadid ‘New Bulgar’ after the Turkic-speaking Volga Bulgars.
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191905636.001.0001/acref-9780191905636-e-8397
Bulgars, Turkic,
also Proto-Bulgarians, Pra-Bulgarians, a pastoral people, originally living in Central Asia. Swept westward in the great movement of steppe peoples ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195046526.001.0001/acref-9780195046526-e-0850
Kuvrat
(Κοβρα̑τος, according to Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 2:161f), khan of the Onogur Bulgars; died after 642. Patr. Nikephoros I mentions his revolt against the Avars and alliance with Herakleios; Kuvrat was granted ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100045529
Kubrat , of the royal Duloclan, ‘lord of the Ononghundur-Bulgars and Kotrags [Kutrigurs?]’
www.oxfordreference.com/search?q=Dulo+clan&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
Originally Asiatic nomads who inhabited the shores of the Black Sea at the end of the 5th century ad but after ad 679 they crossed the Danube and founded a state in the old province of Moesia.
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095534628
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref-9780199534043-e-582
The Volga Tatars live in the central and eastern parts of European Russia and in western Siberia. They are the descendants of the Bulgar and Kipchak Turkic tribes who inhabited the western wing of the Mongol Empire, the area of the middle Volga River.
academic.oup.com/mbe/article/27/10/2220/963437
Chuvash is the sole living representative of the Bulgharic branch, one of the two principal branches of the Turkic family.
oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/oso/9780198804628.001.0001/oso-9780198804628-chapter-28
Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century.
www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I
The language of the European Huns is sometimes referred to as a Bulghar Turkic variety in general linguistic literature, but caution is needed in establishing its affiliations.
www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4CBA0E2CB74C8093EC1CA38C95067D55/S2513843X20000183a_hi.pdf/_div_class__title__Early_nomads_of_the_Eastern_Steppe_and_their_tentative_connections_in_the_West__div_.pdf
In the Hunno-Bulgarian languages /r/ within a consonantic cluster
tends to disappear
projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf
An earlier date for the separation of proto-Turkic, preceding 209 BC would support the identification of Xiongnu language with proto-Bulgharic or one of its subgroups, while a later date of separation would make its association with proto-Turkic more plausible.
academic.oup.com/jole/article-pdf/5/1/39/32972809/lzz010.pdf
@@papazataklaattiranimam
Why do you block me fearless descendant of Turkish warriors ?
Are you afraid of the truth?
@@papazataklaattiranimam jeez you never stop spamming do you. Relax already. Nobody cares what you write here
@@thatisme3thatisme38 do you mean nobody takes bulgarians serious in the world :D
@@papazataklaattiranimam no read it again if you didnt get it first time....
It warms my heart to hear such a soft storytelling voice about the Bulgarian people
ıYı ⰱ
I hope our symbol brings you health and luck 🌞
Exceptional content, but a few more dates or at least approximate ones would have been useful
29:17 Simeon lost that battle.
History of humans: they ate, drank, and then went to war with each other. What else was there to do?
There are some misconceptions, but this is History after all:)
As an introduction, I want to present some ancient sources which speak about Bulgarian people:
- Herodotus writes that the Getae are Thracian people.
- Strabo writes that the Moesi and the Getae are from the same family and speak the same language.
- Cassius Dio writes that the Getae tribe are part of the Scythians.
- Procopius writes that the Getae and Sarmatians are from the same origin.
- Stephanus of Byzantium claims that the Scythians are Thracian people.
V-VI century
- Ioannes Malalas: "The so called Achilles went with Atreidai and led his own army of three thousand men, then called Myrmidons and now Bulgarians" - page 97 www.documentacatholicaomnia....raphia_(CSHB_Dindorfii_Recensione),_GR_LT.pdf picture from the text in Greek: facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150315761464099&set=o.122376701166845&type=1&theater
- Michael Attaleiates: History - ''the Moesi ... are certainly Bulgarians who later received their new name ... Bulgarians Myrmidons ..."
- John Zonaras: ''Paeonians - Latins or Thracian people of Macedonia. These are so-called Paeonians. Paeonians were Bulgarians. "
- Johannes Tzetza: ''Pyros and Akamas (native) of the Thracian Hellespont, Maronietza Evfimos son of Treziius, Pirehmie, who was of the Paeonians they were all from the Bulgarians, from those of the river Axios, also called Vardar'' (see photo with Greek text).
XI century
- ''Bulgarians who are named Thracians according to the previous (old) monuments'' - „Hinc iter aggressi per fines Vulgariorum, quos vocitant Thracas, ut habent monumenta priorum“ - Fulcher of Chartres, a French priest, (a description of the first crusade in 1096)
III-IV century
- Mavro Orbin cites evidence of Marcus Aurelius Kasiodor that Bulgarians fought with the Romans about 390 AD.
- Cassiodorus writes that the Bulgarians are old Moesian or Illyrian people
- Ennodius Ticinensis (473-524, Bishop, court historian of the Gothic King Theodoric) indicate that Bulgarians are old Moesian and Illyrian people.
- 4th century map (see photo) by St. Jerome (331-420) - Mesia hec & Vulgaria (Misia here and Bulgaria). It is composed by even older maps - Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (270 to 33, called the "father of church history." The map is preserved in a copy of the 12th century. letopisec.blog.bg/photos/123281/original/Karta_Ieronim_4_vek22222.jpg
I-II century
-Flavius Josephus writes ''Dacians called Bulgarians''
In addition:
- Ravennatis Anоnymi Cosmographia: „Inter vero Tratiam vel Macedoniam et Mysiam inferiorem modo Bulgari habitant, qui ex super scripta maiore Scythia egressi sunt.” upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Karte_Ravennat.jpg
www.venstar.de/extra/App0003a.bmp
- Demetrios Chomateno: Brief Life of Clement Ohridski - ''This great Father was a native from the European Moesians, people usually known as Bulgarians. They were displaced in the old days by the military power of Alexander of placement of Brusa, Olympus to the North Atlantic and the Dead Sea, and after a long time with terrible army crossed the Danube and invaded all the neighboring areas: Pannonia and Dalmatia, Thrace and Illyricum, and and much of Macedonia and Thessaly''
Difference between north Danube tracko-getaes and south Danube tracko-getaes consists the first still speak their ancestors romanic language, while south Danube trscko-..were slavised or turkished. In antiquity people from Volga till Crete spoke a romanic language, while today the some people from south Danube, except illiriens, some macedonians, few serbien, few bulgariend, don't speak the language of ancestors. Their DNA is from Mongolia or Volga, (volgari). Their ancestors from south or north Danube were the East Roman Empire once, today greeks, slaves, turks superposed under that huge romanic originary population, daco-tracko-getae, slavised in Ukraine too, in Serbia, which turks denominate Rumeli till 1878.
@@anutanastase5687 By the end of the 18th century, the inhabitants of Wallachia and Moldova, who were part of Bulgaria until the end of the 14th century, when Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans, spoke Bulgarian and wrote on the Bulgarian writing system Cyrillic until the mid-19th century. The place names and the names of some cities in Wallachia and Moldova are still Bulgarian today.
A country called Romania - the name of the Roman Empire first appeared on the map of the world in 1859, but was internationally recognized in 1877 or 143 years ago.
@@stars5206
Propaganda
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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
@@anutanastase5687 Romanian was romanised after WW1. Before that, they spoke Bulgarian.
@@hannibalbarca2928 what proofs do you have that we were Turks? There's no proof of other religion than Christianity at the time, we were building with huge stones which excludes the possibility of borrowing architects, all descriptions contradict those of Turks...
Bulgaria did not win the war against the Croats in 926. He sent an army under duke Alogobotur but suffered a very heavy defeat in the battle of Bosnian Highlands. Bulgaria still had a large force after this so they made peace with no territorial changes in 927 after Simeons death.
The problem is that Bulgarians had states even bigger before their Empires .
Also ,Bulgarians did not arrive in the Balkans ,but originated from the Balkans.
Bulgarians are forefathers of most of nations in Eurasia ,some in the middle east .
🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐸🐦😅😅😅😅😅
It is not possible that Old Great Bulgaria, as the Roman historians call it, existed for a short time, because then it would not be old and great. Asparukh did not create a new state, but only inherited his father's empire, which lost territories in the east but regained territories occupied by the Roman Empire in the southwest. It is impossible for a state that has collapsed to defeat the Eastern Roman Empire and its 60,000 army. It is obvious that in the war in 679 the empire of Old Great Bulgaria defeated the Eastern Roman Empire.
I knew there was a Bulgarian Empire, but few details about it. Very interesting talk, but difficult to hear, volume is too low. It sounded like one prince was killed by “pneumatic locks”? I doubt I got that one right!
Krum was described as blonde by the byzantines. The guy you had posing for him was not a good representation
It is possible because his mother was Slavic
@@papazataklaattiranimam jeez u again ....
You may not know about this that there is a village just north of Tabriz city (Capital of Southern Azerbaijan =Northwest of Iran)by the name of Isaprakhon!
BULGARIA = GREAT INDOEUROPEAN HISTORY
Since when an indoeuropean state uses the title KHAN?
Don't argue about the origins of a country or people. 70'000 years ago humans where endangered species of about 10k individuals. Even less before that.
Bulgarians are not Turks or Slavs. Some Bulgarians are linguistically Slavonic, some are not.
The Russian Alexander Dmitrievich Chertkov (1789-1858) was the first to launch the lie that Asparukh's Bulgarians, who in 680 created a state south of the Danube, were a small horde that the Slavonic tribes assimilated. This outright lie, created by Chertkov in 1842, has been raised by Russian propaganda and dogmatically enforced in historical science in Russia and Bulgaria since 1878. Chertkov was a hereditary nobleman, his national self-esteem growing, especially after the war of 1812. From 1822 Chertkov began to deal with history. He visited Italy and was the first to decide that the Slavonic tribes should be ancient. That is why he began to look for them before the 6th century AD (when they are first mentioned in the sources). Chertkov is the founder of the theory that the Thracians are Slavic. He develops the idea that Thracians emigrating north from the Danube to the Baltic Sea are the future Slavs. Chertkov was the first to present the Old Bulgarian translation of the "Manasses Chronicle" with the notes of the Bulgarian translator, but as a true "gray cardinal" of Pan-Slavism, Chertkov did not hesitate to lie that the Bulgarians were not "numerous" and that the Slavs had assimilated them. Since then, this lie has been repeated in every book on Slavic history, despite the fact that the in the old original text the exact opposite was written, namely that the Bulgarians were “numerous” in comparison to the Slavonic tribes, which were subjugated by Asparukh's Bulgarians. This fact is recorded not only in the Manasses Chronicle, there are other sources about the "numerous" Bulgarians in the year 680. The Bulgarians, as the sources say, were "like the sand in the sea" (a Khazar-Jewish correspondence from the 10th century, which refers to Bulgarians at the end of the 7th century), an "innumerable majority" ("Roman History" (Book 2, 2). Nicephorus Gregoras).
@@papazataklaattiranimam A lot of links a lot of stuff. How can your links explain why these Mongolian/turkic Bulgars lost not just their maternal but their paternal heritage as well? A comparison according to the genetic makeup across all of Europe between Bulgaria and an actual turkic country such as Turkey shows the Asiatic influence in Turkey varies from about 10 to 30 percent while in Bulgaria varies from 1 to less than 2 percent and from 2 to about 2.5 in muslimized Bulgarians such as the Pomaks. These numbers are lower than most of the other Balkan countries. Not that it actually maters as our statistics are relitavly close. Numbers as low as these have no effect on our bodies and are part of what science calls junk dna. The actual reasons why we are called Mongolians or Turkic or Tatars are coming from political or geopolitical reasons. Our ancestors have been here long before the said year of 681or any other linguistic group from the Slavic branch. All the name calling lies will not change the facts. N. Macedonia has been Bulgarian throughout most of our history here and we share a genetic resemblance like no other on the continent. Followed closely by Moldavia and especially by Wallachia. The Cyrillic alphabet or the Bulgarian alphabet was created by our own for our own personal use. The Bulgarian calendar is older than the Chinese and is acknowledged as the most accurate yet. Even if it was for a short while from Poland to the Rus everyone spoke and wrote in Bulgarian and no one has the power to take away or erase our contribution to society.
@@jimmypage2499 I didn’t even say Bulgarians are Turkic lmao they are Slavic-Balkanic peoples and wtf is mongolian bulgars hahaha
@@papazataklaattiranimam
Why does Turkey betray the Uighurs?
There’s a good 30 or so seconds of audio missing from the first minute do the video. Good documentary, nonetheless!
🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬❤❤❤
Greed, deceit and war.....some things never change.
The great Mother
BULGARIA
At 1:52, you mentioned "a long line of states that the Bulgars had established during their centuries-long migration ..."
Could you please make a video about those prior states? I can't find any information. I keep hearing about this - what now starts to sound more like a 'myth' because the only time the term "Bulgaria" appears to have been used up to that point is when Kubrat formed the Great Old Bulgaria Khaganate. I have yet to see a detailed account of all these other "long lines of states."
Byzantine this, Byzantine that and Byzantines all over...I admit once in a while to call the Romans (Rhomaioi from the Basileia ton Rhomaion or Romania or Imperium Romanum) 'byzantines' because of the modern distortion of history -intentional or not but still..it's annoying..and false. And there was no Catholic church in 864...there was only Christianity..admittedly the seeds of papal heresy were already there. Other than that it's a nice movie.
They were greek and armenian mostly after the second century the emperors of eastern rome
Also the guy that made that city Byzantas was from Peloponese
Nikos Athanasopoulos The "guy" who built Byzant was anatolien hitits. They built also a temple dedicated to their supreme sun goddess Hepatia. The capital of hitits was Hatusas in middle of Anatolia. The name of their temple was The temple of Holly Mother, in later connection with Hagia Sofia. On the remnants of Byzant Constantin the Great founded The New Rome, but peoe said to this new capital of East Roman Empire, Constantinusa. Probable step by step this Constantinusa became Constantinople. But in Vl century a confusion created in a military confrontation reprezents today the "beginning" of roumanian language, which is in fact a stupid politically document and consists in a following sentence of:" Torna, torna fratre!" This sentence noted in a chronicle it is not at all what the detractors of roumanian language said, but it certainly have represented a military disaster. But speaking roumanian language in proximity of Constantinople in VI century is very important and not at all by happen to be noted.
You can come to argos and see his grave
That's called proof
42:05 "simply too many open areas where foreigners could come in and invade." Isn't this where we started? If we go back to the beginning of the story, isn't this how the first Bulgars entered in the first place?
This was an interesting and well-told narrative of 300+ years of wars and successions and new invasions and conquests and victories and losses. But I was curious: how did people live? How did they make their living? What was the life of the many? What were the women doing? Who were the warriors within society? What were the sources of wealth and labor that went into weapons and campaigns?
Everywhere and all the time, it just seems to be the known patterns (always with variations) of wars and wars and sieges and the rich and powerful exploiting until some of the weaker rise up to either become the new powerful or be massacred, kings and tyrants trying to hold greedy, backward, back-stabbing nobilities in line, double-crosses breaking peaces and succession struggles among brothers and even a people's religion chosen by the whim or calculation or ambition of one man who's on top for a year. Does it ever end? Is there a way out?
If the topic is interesting to you, try to find information about which tribes opposed Rome for about 200 years, how many attempts they made to liberate their land, why Constantine the Great gave them autonomy without taxes. The truth is quite different from what is imposed.
To all the turks, brainwashed by their imperialistic propaganda, claiming the Bulgars/Bulgarians are of turkic origin. Bulgar and Bulgarian is the same thing. No source before the 18th century says they are different. There is no such thing as "proto-bulgarian", there is no source using that term before the 18th century. Bulgarians have always been Bulgarians. In the 18th century a French and German scholars who never visited the Bulgarian lands made that foolish mistake that the Bulgarians are of turkic origin. After that every scholar claiming that, quoted or repeated their mistakes. The Bulgarian folklore(older than the turks) has nothing to do with the turkic traditions.That is one of the many examples showing that Bulgarians have nothing to do with the turks. If you claim that the Bulgarians are of turkic origin show me real sources before the 18th century. Not works full of mistakes and nonsense made for political aims.
As the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples.[36][24][26][30]
The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil).
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bulgaria
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 Xiongnu (late 3rd cent. ... ...
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662778.001.0001/acref-9780198662778-e-820
Many Slavic tribes lived within the boundaries of the state, together with the proto-Bulgarians, a tribe of Turkic origin that had settled in the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century.
www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-I
The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation that gave rise to the Balkan Bulgar and Volga Bulgar states.The ethynonym derives from the Turkish bulgha-,”to stir,mix,disturb,confuse.”
books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&redir_esc=y&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=Bulgars&f=false (Harvard University Press)
The Volga Bulgars, a Turkish tribe then living on the east bank of the Volga River, ... the laws of Islam to the Bulgars, who had recently converted to the religion.
www.bookrags.com/research/ahmad-ibn-fadlan-ued/#gsc.tab=0
Eastern Bulgars , Bulgars Ancient Turkic people originating in the region n and e of the Black Sea.
www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/balkan-states
Volga Bulgaria was a northeastern European Turkic state that formed during the 9th century and continued into the first four decades of the 13th century.
www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe009
www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern
referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-slavic-languages-and-linguistics-online/*-COM_031941
referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/bulghars-COM_23726
www.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-Bulgar+languages
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars
www.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgar
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bolgars
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Proto-bulgarians
xn--80ad7bbk5c.xn--p1ai/en/content/brief-history-suvar-bulgars
bulgarizdat.ru/index.php/book1/article1-1
Bulgars, Eastern bŭl´gärz, -gərz [key], Turkic-speaking people, who possessed a powerful state (10th-14th cent.) at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama, E European Russia.
www.factmonster.com/encyclopedia/social-science/cultures/other/bulgars-eastern
(Cambridge University Press)
books.google.com.tr/books?id=Ylz4fe7757cC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=proto+bulgars&source=bl&ots=vvGsuu2J3g&sig=ACfU3U2YuPKKdgVQKhoUi2fyDiC99n4N_Q&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRqIaDlNvmAhWM-yoKHW38DDI4FBDoATAAegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=proto%20bulgars&f=false
Population genetic analysis indicated that Conquerors had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
hizliresim.com/stAHqu (Bulgar genetic proximity)
Thus supporting the view that Tatars may be descendents of ancient Bulgars.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22520580/
Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/250688v1.full
However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.15.876912v1.full.pdf
Most Tatars trace their descent to Volga Bulgars, a medieval Turkic people who have inhabited the Middle Volga and lower Kama region.
online.ucpress.edu/search-results?page=1&q=Bulgars
Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/
Population genetic results indicate that they had closest connection to the Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of Volga Tatars.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205920&type=printable
Onogur-Bulgars had been part of the Hunnic people, and after the death of Attila’s son Irnik, European Hun remains fused with the Onogurs.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/
Caucasus as the first Turkic peoples (Avars, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs) arrived.
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Exile
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2849381?journalCode=spc
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2853091?journalCode=spc
brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789047423560/Bej.9789004163898.i-492_006.xml
Ahmad Ibn Fadlan and Mahmud Al Kashgari said that Bulgars were Turks cry🤣🤣🤣
@@papazataklaattiranimam
Why does Turkey betray the Uighurs?
ruclips.net/video/gJqHD05ZSfY/видео.html
I approve of this !
There is actually no evidence the royal bulgar title was "khan". This is just a supposition that has no basis other than opinion of a few early historians which has thereafter been perpetuated with no evidence to back it.
Secondly it's highly unlikely the bulgars were nomadic. The bulgars built monumental buildings both in Volga and Danube Bulgaria soon after arriving in these lands. Nomadic tribes do not create buildings like these. The ruins found in what is now Ukraine (the land of Old Great Bulgaria) also shows similar monumental stone construction that is very unsupportive of the nomadic lifestyle theory. Another myth that has been perpetuated over the decades - repeated over and over until it seems like truth.
the pictures on the vudeo are not coherent with what is told. And the speaker speaks way to fast, so it is very difficult to follow.
Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."
Around 4% of Bulgarian genes are derived outside of Europe and the Middle East or are of undetermined origin (by 858 CE), of which 2.3% are from Northeast Asia and correspond to Asian tribes such as Bulgars,[13] a consistent very low frequency for Eastern Europe as far as Uralic-speaking Hungarians.
Why does Turkey betray the Uighurs?
@@petertodorov9540 why are you mad?