Ask yourself whether it is possible for a newly created country to be called by the Roman chronographs Old Great Bulgaria and then judge for the whole video.

@monkmarionson6287

3 күн бұрын

from the Greeks

Nowadays, no one is pure Germanic, Slavic or Turkic. What matters is what you feel in your soul. Greetings to those who gallop westward on the steppes with their majestic horses, get ambitious with war drums, and find awe with ancient melodies

@zneytram1432

Ай бұрын

I wouldn't say no one is pure.

@lakwerdmann3802

Ай бұрын

@@zneytram1432well then you never had human evolution in school. It’s proven that no one is pure or can be because people have been living on the planet for a very long time and different peoples have always mixed with each other. We are all mixed. Keep that in your mind. :)

@zneytram1432

Ай бұрын

@@lakwerdmann3802 I'm pretty sure that most of what they teach about evolution is a lie. Also I just said that I don't believe that everyone is mixed. Some people are pure.

@thegreatpoop1150

Ай бұрын

@@lakwerdmann3802human macro evolution is wrong

@ChristopherTanne-se3pz

Ай бұрын

@kaanhtr They galopp first to the east and tocharians and indoeuropean scyhtians qonquared eastasia

The Kutrigurs are mentioned frequently in late antique sources from the 6th century, such as in Pseudo-Zacharias (Pseudo-Zacharias or in the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias of Mytilene), Procopius of Caesarea, Agathius and Menander Protector. Procopius cites a legendary account according to which Kutrigurians and Utigurians originally lived in the same state. Probably in the first half of the 5th century they attacked the Goths west of the Don and pushed them out of Black Sea Scythia. Gruset thinks that the Kutrigurs are remnants of the Huns. Procopius narrates: "In ancient times many Huns, then called CIMMERIANS, inhabited the lands I have already mentioned. They all had one king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one named Utigur and the other named Kutrigur. After the death of their father they divided the power and gave their names to the subject peoples, so that to this day some of them are called Utiguri and others Kutriguri." They occupy the Tanaitic-Meotian (Dono-Azov) steppe zone, the Kutrigurs in the western part and the Utrigurs in the east. The Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical History of Pseudo-Zacharius the Rhetor (c. 555) in Western Eurasia describes thirteen tribes, wngwr (Unogur) , wgr (Ugri), sbr (Sabir), bwrgr (Burğar , i.e. Bulgarians), kwrtrgr (Kutriğurs), br (probably Abar , i.e. Avar), ksr (Kasr ; Akatziri ?), srwrgwr ( Saragur), dyrmr(* [I]di[r]mar ? Priscus Paniyski describes the HUNIS as a "gathering of peoples" and claims that the name HUNIS is devoid of ethnic meaning and is a common name for all the subjects of their empire. Some scholars such as Edwin Pouleyblanc and Yuri Zuev link the origin of the Utigurs with the Yueji. The Hun emperor Attila was also Bulgarian and Bulgarians played a major role in his empire. By Prisk Paniyski АTTILA is described as a Scythian of the Royal Scythians and there can be no question that the Bulgarians are some kind of Turks. THE BULGARIANS ARE ANCIENT THRACOCIMMERIANS. You have looked at the matter very superficially without evidence.

@SorinVertigo-dn8rj

2 күн бұрын

Bulgarians are slavic turcic iranic stock scityans and huns khazars😂 yiu writhe for nothing long poem 😂

I have roots of Chuvash ( Volga Bulgars) + Whiterussian = fill like a Bulgarian. Hello to my Bulgarian brathers!

@user-ru1rw4gs9u

Ай бұрын

Салам от волжского булгара я с чуваший

@simonpetrov4195

Ай бұрын

Поздрави от България!!

@miroslavpopov7732

Ай бұрын

Поздрави от България!!

@martinchristow

Ай бұрын

@@user-ru1rw4gs9u салам :)

@ninakoleva4932

Ай бұрын

Поздрави от България - Пловдив , брат !!!

A great video, I truly enjoy your informative videos. Keep'em coming.

@ileavazan7693

Ай бұрын

you mean enjoy the misinformation and lies ...

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

I am very proud of my Turkic, Greek and Bulgarian Heritage! Long Live the Ancient Dreams!

@abdulhakimsaid9264

Ай бұрын

Да живее Великата България ❤🎉

@ForceOfUru

Ай бұрын

Your ancestors are smiling at you, since you accept all of them without discrimination. May your descendants honour you like this.

@abdulhakimsaid9264

Ай бұрын

@@ForceOfUru всички сме разместени...Всякъде има етнически Малцинства!Здравей!

@krahsm

Ай бұрын

Bro stop living in the past. Look at americans they dont have either a history or a culture but they rule the world. Only losers lose time with the past

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

​@@krahsmHowever, they have tourniquets that kill them like insects

Mihail Ataliat - "History": "...misis are certainly the Bulgarians, who later received their new name..." ⬛ 2. Zonara, dictionary: "Paeonians - Latins or Thracian people, Macedonians. These are the so-called Pannonians. The Pannonians are Bulgarians." ⬛ 3 Fouche de Chartres, French priest, description of the First Crusade 1096: "From here they went through the lands of the Bulgarians, who are called Thracians" ⬛ 4. Ioan Tsetsas, "Hiliads": "The Paeonians are Bulgarians". ⬛ 5. Homatian, describing the life of Kliment Ohridski, explains - "This great father of ours and beacon of Bulgaria was a descendant of the European Mizis, whom the people usually know as Bulgarians." ⬛ 6. Cassiodorus (6th century, Roman historian) writes that the Bulgarians are an old Mysian or Illyrian people. ⬛ 7. Enodius of Titius (473-524, bishop, court historian of the Gothic king Theodoric) also states that the Bulgarians are an old Mysian or Illyrian people. ⬛ 8. Leo the Deacon (Byzantine historian from the 10th century) persistently calls the Bulgarians Mizis. For the Byzantines, the words Mizis, Scythians and Bulgarians meant the same thing, they used them as synonyms. ⬛ 9. The Byzantine chroniclers Ioan Skilitsa and Georgi Kedrin, reporting on the defeat of the Byzantines at the Acheloi River in 917 by King Simeon, maliciously write: "not the Bulgarian, but Simeon the Mysian defeated the Roman army with his characteristic Scythian madness". Skilitsa calls Simeon a Mizian, because the Bulgarians are Mizians, as he is. And another important thing - by attributing to Tsar Simeon the "Scythian madness", the Thracians and the Scythians are equated in the face of the Bulgarian people. ⬛ 10. Theophanes and John of Antioch, when they talk about the Bulgarians in the 5th century, use the expression "those called Bulgarians" - because Greek and Latin chronographers and chroniclers used another name - "Mizi". ⬛ 11. Ioan Malala writes: "Arrived with Atreides and Samsi Achilles with his own army, once called Myrmidons, but now Bulgarians, 3000 people". This information is also reflected in the Old Bulgarian translation of the "Iliad", made at the time of Tsar Simeon the Great at the Preslav Literary School. ⬛ 12 John Tsetsas writes: "and then they all arrived in Avlis in ships, and with them Achilles, the son of Peleus and Thetis, the daughter of the philosopher Chiron, leading an army of Huno-Bulgarian-Myrmidons numbering two thousand five hundred." ⬛ 13 Ioan Tsetsas "And the peons are Bulgarians. Do not believe fools, to think that peons are different from them."

I am loving these videos and this channel. Thank you so much from the UK

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

Love this video 😍 I’m a Turk and I have had my DNA tested with the highest percentage of DNA from Bulgaria, my family currently lives near Tekirdağ - Trakya only 50km from the Bulgarian border. So this was very informative for me to learn about my history. Thank you kardeş 👏👏👏

@user-gz3oi5ye2v

Ай бұрын

Because ur ancestors was Bulgarians thats why DNA never lies

@iliyanshmilev

Ай бұрын

Your ancestors were Bulgarians and assimilated from the Ottoman Empire politics. The modern turks of Ottoman descent and bulgarians have different DNA.

@nurettinsarul

Ай бұрын

All Bulgarians were Turks in ancient times. After mixing with Slavs they are not Turks anymore but they are still Turkic.

@EtkoPetko-tr4db

Ай бұрын

​@@nurettinsarulNot so simple. At first there was a local Roman population ,dominantly Thracians with some other elements brought during the time of Roman empire the gothic tribes arrived followed by the Slavic and amongs them proto Bulgarian tribes and that was how exactly medieval Bulgarian etnicity was shaped during early medieval times.

@marinvalkov9755

Ай бұрын

Уважаеми Братко, наскоро имаше ДНК тестове в Турция. И какво показват резултатите. В Източната част на Турция има много Арменци и Кюрди и наследници на Hitite ( Хетите) Обаче какво се оказва на запад. Има малко Сирийска кръв останалата част е същата като на Балканите. Трако - Пеласгииска. Гърците ги знам че са Данайци от Етиопия. Османлиите не са били повече 80,000 мъже. Всички жени са местни от Византия а те са като нас Траките. Ти може да си MUSLIM по религия Обаче по кръв си мой Брат. Аз мога да живея в Канада и да съм Бодист, но Аз съм Българин - Тракиец по кръв. Приятен ден Ви желая.

Complete nonsense. Thеse ridiculous theories were written in the 19th century. There is not a single Roman document that describes the arrival of Bulgarians from Asia. On the contrary, Bulgaria has always been here in Thrace. CHAPTER LXXXIX 72. And Vitalian, whom we have just mentioned, raised a revolt against the emperor Anastasius, and seized Thrace and Scythia 206 and Mysia, and mustered a numerous army. 73. And the emperor sent against him a general named Hypatius. And when they fought together, he was vanquished by Vitalian and taken prisoner. And on the payment of a large ransom he was set free. 74. But immediately on his return to the emperor, the latter removed him from his command, and appointed in his room another general, named Cyril, of the province of Illyria. 75. And he also gave battle to Vitalian, and there was great slaughter on both sides. Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria. 513-514 AC

I enjoyed the video! I hope to see in the future an extensive video about the Pechenegs. Is it coming soon?

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

Thank you komsho from all bulgarians for this video

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

Much obliged, friend.

@user-nt9dp3xb1z

Ай бұрын

Are you stupid? This is bullshit Turkish propaganda.

@user-nt9dp3xb1z

23 күн бұрын

haha ... You are thanking for being told you are a "Turk"... You are a very confused man. Definitely not a Bulgarian.

@evgenibonev6954

15 күн бұрын

Hahaha 😅😢 komsho We are NOT turks !!! And NEVER will be !!!

@gecata227

15 күн бұрын

Недей да говориш от името на всички , папагал

Thank you ❤ very much for the video!

@lyudmilpetrov79

Ай бұрын

българино прочети Георги Раковски и старите автори и ще видиш, че това видео е много наивно и погрешно

@Stafo777

Ай бұрын

@@lyudmilpetrov79 Раковски не е историк!Кой стари български автори?От кой период?Кои са техните източници знаеш ли???

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

@@Stafo777 Както "thank you" бе, кретен прост и умит?! Оня те нарича тюрк и обижда твоя произход, история и култура, а ти викаш "thank you" ... И какво значи "Раковски не е историк", а авторът на видеото историк ли е? Ти си толкова КУХ, че няма на къде повече. Тюркската теория е отдавна невалидна в научна среда, за тая смешна теория няма и микрон доказателство, само 99.99% лингвистични спекулации! Срам ме е от такива псевдобългари като теб! (а може би не си и българин)

@nikolapetrov7711

Ай бұрын

@@Stafo777 А кой историк доказва някакъв си "тюркски" произход на старите българи бе, балък псевдобългарин глупав? Безродник и предател прост! Ти въобще от български етнос ли си, или си от смесен брак, или от малцинствата? Защото предимно такива като теб в нета се правят на българи и поддържат тая анти-българска тюркоманска гнусна пропаганда, дето няма НИЩО ОБЩО с науката.

nice work man ,go on like this.❤🇹🇷

@Red6Games

Ай бұрын

LMAO some Bulgarians are seriously fascist right-wing idiots. It shows here. They really believe they would be the navel of the world. 😂

@nikolapetrov7711

Ай бұрын

Cheap Turkish propaganda.

Thanks!

Amazing video, as usual Thanks Emre

Amazing work. Thank you!

Congrats... Amazing video again. :)

Hey Khans Den, just wanted to show my appreciation for these videos. This historical knowledge is very valuable for people interested in learning turkic history. Dont be discouraged by those with dishonest motivations. Keep your head up!

One of the best ,or should I say the best video so far made , explaining and bringing the history of the Bulgars, the greatests of the great warriors.

@thracian2072

Ай бұрын

How can they have been the greatest when they were trounced by both the khazars and mongols?

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

I don't know who made this misleading video, but it is totally anti-scientific and outdated. Bulgarians and our ancestors from the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages (called by the historians as Proto-Bulgarians), are proven to be one and the same people. By DNA origin, by language, by traditions, by everything. We have absolutely NO connection in history with anything Turkic people, especially the nomadic Oggurs. This ridiculous. The Turkic theory has long been out of date and invalid in historical science, regarding the origin of the Balkan populations such as Serbs, Bulgarians, etc., because it is known to have been imposed from the outside for political reasons during the times of rebellions and freedom struggles from the Ottomans. This theory and its variants were promoted and developed by the German, Austro-Hungarian schools of history, so that Bulgarian ethnic group should not form a big and strong state on the Balkans in the times of struggles for liberation. It was also particularly popular with the Serbs in early stages of their historical science, who are said to be descended from Huns, Sorbs and Turkic population around Volga, Meotid lake etc. This theory has no actual factology, only speculation (99% linguistical speculation). Not a single real scientific fact... After the fall of the communism in 1989 the question of the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians was opened again and the Turkic theory of the origin of Proto-Bulgarians was put aside as one of the other theories.. In 2011 it was officially thrown away of the historical diaspora. We all know it was mostly political theory anyway Also there were several genetical researches from 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2022 that completely debunked the "mystery" and proven that the Proto-Bulgarians were 100% WESTeurasian people as the ones that live in Eastern Europe for thousands of years. /For ppl who don't know, the term Eurasia, which geneticists use, designates the total land mass of the continents of Europe + Asia as one common area. Western Eurasia is Eastern and Southeastern Europe when it comes specifically to genetic research./ Even Britannica was updated. Before it claimed that Bulgars were Turkic, now it says they are WESTeurasian, because of the newest genetical researches... "Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations." - Britannica - Bulgar The "Turkic theory" was already totally disproven by every modern scientific discipline - critical historical analysis, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, paleogenetics/archaeogenetics, and genetics in general, etc. The official anthropological and genetic studies have categorically proved that the Proto-Bulgarians were the majority of the population. This is an officially recognized and supported opinion at the moment because all the results show it. Let's also summarize that there is no genetic difference between the proto-Bulgarians and today's Bulgarians - it has been proven that we are one and the same people, not some "separate" and "different" groups of people, i.e. there are only Bulgarians. We are the direct successors of those people. We carry their genes, culture, name, language everything. This was clearly shown by several disciplines, and the genetic shift is so minimal that it cannot even justify the elapsed time from the 8th-9th-10th century to today. (It was BS theory anyway, since it was originally foreign polit-historical thesis (German, Austro-Hungarian, Romano-Russian) and pushed here from outside, and then maintained by Bulgarian peddlers and mediocre "scientists") These are the facts, no matter how much you don't like it from a personal point of view or grudge. What you "like" and what you don't "like" has nothing to do with reality and the correct exact science and its progress over time, with the replacement of the outdated anti-scientific theories, officially accepted through non-scientific means, but under political pressure. ---- - "We found no evidence of East Asian and African haplogroups. Thus, our results do not support theories of Мongоlo-Altaic and Hun-Тatаriс origins of proto-Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are positioned among South-Eastern and Southern European populations including modern Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are genetically distant from Northern and Western Europeans and populations from the Near East and Caucasus." - "On the greatest distance from Proto-Bulgarians are Volga-Ural and Arabic populations." - "Our results therefore suggest that proto-Bulgarians are genetically similar to modern Bulgarians and to certain South-Eastern European as well as Italian populations." Those quotes are from the official 6-year long genetical research made by BAS (The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), MU (Medical University of Sofia), Florence University of Italy and Pavia University of Italy, with DNA samples of the same Proto-Bulgars that you are speaking off. In the first years they took 13 DNA probes from the teeth of 13 people, 100% proven to be Proto-Bulgars, by archeologists. Later they took more. The results: 1. They are all homogenous, which shows one ethnicity, not a product of mixed people. 2. They are proven to be the same as the modern Bulgarians - the only difference is the elapsed time from the 8th-9th-10th century to present day. 3. They are all 100% South-Eastern and Southern European Balkan people by origin! Sharing haplogropups as the ones that live in South-Eastern and Southern Europe for thousands of years. NO Turkic, Iranian, or any Asiatic connection whatsoever. Zero. Now let those facts sink in your brain and remember them the next time you want to spam BS about my ancestors.

@yuksi22

Ай бұрын

@debnadaebna9981 , on what science do you relate to that you are opposing all said here? Please explain

@thracian2072

Ай бұрын

@@yuksi22 haplogroups give a very limited picture compared to autosomal genetics. I've given you citations. Go review them.

Great video. The symbol of the Dolu tribe looks much like of the Kayi tribe of Oguz. Are the Magyars next?

@oddindian1

Ай бұрын

Irony. My Surname is Dulo.

@marinvalkov9755

Ай бұрын

@@oddindian1 HI, If tipping in Google top 10 longest ruling DINASTY in world. The DULO DINASTY Is longest ruling in world. The second is Japan only 10 years behind. 3rd is Vietnamese or Korean. All Asian except DULO DINASTY .THE DULO symbol IYI you can find in many countries in Central Asia and in Turkey. But the oldest one is in Bulgaria in Balkans. 8,000 years old. This is the symbol of GODES MATHER . Is possible to have much older in Cappadocia, Turkey. Because this is the place where first farmers come to Balkans and mixed with hunters. If you looking top 10 oldest city in Europe 8 are in Balkans.

@oddindian1

Ай бұрын

@@marinvalkov9755 My family surname is Bulgarian(I am Hungarian by birth). The Surname itself was carried by the khans/kings of Bulgaria. The Bolghar (from which Bulgarians came from) peoples were Turkic in origin, they were Asiatic. The symbol of my family is a Tamga or seal synonymous with Turks. Some of what you say I know to be true. I have never heard or found in research that my family's dynasty was older than the Yamato's in Japan. As far back as I could go concretely was to my ancestor Kubrat who may or may not have been a part of the Western Turkic Khaganate. The only thing for certain is that he founded the first Bulgarian State in what is now Ukraine.

Greetings to all brothers and sisters of the Steppes! Thank You Emre for putting such dedication into your excellent series of educational videos. I love learning about all of the Ural-Altaic Peoples that were part of our ancestors cultures.

It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage video about( Old Great Bulgaria 🇧🇬 ) origin ( onogur -the bulgars 5-6-7 AD centuries) (culture)&(legacy) .thank you 🙏 (Khan Den) channel for sharing this magnificent video

@diyanivanov4107

Ай бұрын

Bulgarians and Bolgars have nothing In common. We are different people genetically and cilturaly. Bulgarian rulers were never called Khans. There isn't any historical document confirming this

@yerekebake2090

18 күн бұрын

@@diyanivanov4107 Ibn Fadlan mentioned Almish as a Elteber of the Bulgars. Elteber is a kind of lord lower than Khan in Turkic hiarachy

@polysmith1950

4 күн бұрын

Dian Ivanov what about khan Kubrat ....?

@polysmith1950

4 күн бұрын

Dian Ivanov, something is not right in the video,just the connection is 500 years under Turkish. You could see from the lates history just after restoring Bulgarian country taken back from Turkish ,their Kemal Atatürk what he said. He was an ambassador in Sofia and very progressive Turks. He was happy to see something different in Bulgaria different European culture and habits.....

@diyanivanov4107

34 минут бұрын

@@polysmith1950 DO YOU KNOW THAT IN THE ROMEIC SCRIPTURES OF BULGARIAN THE OWNER IS NEVER RECORDED WITH THE TITLE KHAN/KAN..? There we meet Genghis Khan with the title χαν, but the title in Bulgarian rulers in the Romanian chronicle is imperator, dux, reges, rex, princeps - never χαν (khan/kan). BULGARIAN OWNERS NAMED KHANOV CHAK 10-12 CENTURIES IN QUESTION FROM BULGARIAN HISTORY, summed up by malevolent foreign forces. Find the Bulgarian inscriptions from the title on the ruler left by Omurtag and Malamir. 1. 814-829 - CANES - Medallion on Omurtag 2. 821-822 - KANAS - Chatalar inscription 3. 822 - КѦNNѦC - Omurtagov inscription in the Holy “Chetirideset of the Martyr” 4. 822-836 - KANAS - Turdachys, Omurtag 5. 822-836 - KANAS - Kopant Korsis, Omurtag 6. 822-836 - KANAS - Kolobart, Ichirgu, Omurtag 7. 836 - KANEC - from Malamir belezhka, very important: Prez 893 Romeyskiyat ezik in the Bulgarian scriptures, changing from Cyrillic and Old Bulgarian. Vednaga trace tova zabelyazvame promyana. The title is written in Bulgarian and appears in Bulgarian “ Ꙁ “. From KANAS, exchange me for KANѦꙀЪ 8. Around 900, in the Bulgarian palimpsest from the Vatican, the title appears: KANѦꙀЪ 9. Around 950. In the Supraslski collection for the Bulgarians, the owners of the title appear: КNѦꙀь КNѦꙀ КЪNѦꙀь 10. 10th - 11th century in Savin’s book, write: КNѦꙀ 11. Ioan Exarch in “Six Days” writes for the prince himself. 12. Chernorizets Khrabar in “For the Letter” - write for the prince: 13. 996-7 -1060-61 - On the tombstone of Presian II, write: KЪНѦꙀь 14. In “The Name Book of the Bulgarian Prince,” in three prescripts to the imam: КЪNѦꙀЪ КNѦꙀ сii ҃е кнѧꙁ princess Isperikh КNѦꙀ Esperikh КNѦꙀ 15. In the Bulgarian census on the Manasiev Chronicle, Imam KNѦZЪ, KNѦZA From the point of view, there is a lot of writing from the source that goes from KANAS to KANѦꙀ and KNѦꙀ e is natural, logical and obvious. Sedite and enemy in Bulgarian was never called ONE ONE Bulgarian ruler khan. In the writings on Iztochnata the Roman Empire, with which they had a close relationship, the Romans wrote the Khanovet into the Turks, the Mongols cato χαν, but the Bulgarian sovereigns wrote down none of the knowledge with χαν. Bulgarian rulers sa recording in Romeyskite scriptures: emperor, dux reges rex princeps dominus ἄρχοντος υβηγη ἄρχον ἄρχηγός ἐκ θεοῦ ἄρχοντος, It means something: emperor, ruler, prince, ruler, but never before our enemies were called in Bulgarian by our rulers khan/kan. It’s ironic that the same name “Khanova” was given to the enemy and that’s how it was in the 10th-12th centuries. Prez minalia century nay-veche under alien influence and without a single writer istochnik se sewing izkstveno vurhu bulgarskite dzrezhavnitsi titlata "khan". Before the 30th year of freedom, access to many historical twists and possibilities in Bulgarian and foreign sources of the rule of the Izmat "Khan" was all obvious and absurd. Balont na 100 godishnata izmislitsa se puka. So, historically, they added a scientific title and wrote a work for the title "khan" of coercion and I prefasonirat for not imposing this and renouncing this scripture. Poleka-leka se promkvat izkazvaniya, che vsaschnost titlat not beat “khan”, but “kan” Tova soil before 30-40 years. Days "kan" is being used honestly. Ty izpolnyava perfectly zamisla na szdatelite si - visually decency on the truth - KANAS, KANѦꙀЪ, but the Turkic ѝ essence of the remainder is not exchanged. Titla khan/kan is not present on nito, a single epigraphic monument, reminiscent of the Bulgarian ruler. Titla khan/kan is not present in the Bulgarian palimpsest from the Vatican, which is a nay-ranniyat Cyrillic document. Titla khan/kan is not present nito in Supraslski collection, Nito Savin's book, nito Yoan Exarch, nito Chernorizets Khrabar spomenavat kan/khan, Nito Simeonoviya, Svetoslav’s collection from 1073, neither Assemane's chosen gospel, Nito Doxov's prescription, nito kadeto and yes beat friend write for “kanove” and “khanove”, and in every case it is the very Bulgarian title KANAS, KANѦꙀЪ, KНѦЗ.

Bulgarians using a varient of the Cyrilic alphabet???? "The Cyrillic script is a writing system developed in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9th century. It was created to write the Old Church Slavonic language, which was the first Slavic literary language. The script is named after Saint Cyril, one of the two Byzantine brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who were credited with standardizing the Slavic languages and, thus, bringing literacy and Christianity to the Slavic peoples." So we can easily say that Bulgarians are the creators of the script,it was literally made by them for them? "Yes, it's accurate to attribute significant credit to the Bulgarians for the creation and dissemination of the Cyrillic script. The script was indeed developed in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9th century. While Saints Cyril and Methodius, who were Byzantine brothers, are often credited with its creation, it's important to clarify their roles and the context in which Cyrillic was developed. Cyril and Methodius were primarily responsible for the creation of the Glagolitic script, the oldest known Slavic alphabet, which they devised to translate the Bible and other texts into the Old Church Slavonic language for the Great Moravia territory (present-day Slovakia and Czech Republic). Their mission was part of a broader effort to spread Christianity among the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe. The Glagolitic script was the basis for the development of the Cyrillic script. The Cyrillic script, however, was developed later, after the death of Cyril and Methodius, by their disciples and other scholars in the Preslav Literary School and the Ohrid Literary School within the First Bulgarian Empire. This new script was more influenced by the Greek alphabet and was adapted to better suit the phonetic peculiarities of Slavic languages. The Cyrillic script quickly gained popularity over the Glagolitic script due to its simplicity and the influence of the Bulgarian Empire." Please stop making videos!

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

That sentence in the video was indeed poorly worded. I am well aware of Klement creating and distributing the Cyrillic Script in the 9th century.

@marinvalkov9755

Ай бұрын

Вие вероятно сте наш сънародник. Не Ви нападам. Това сте учили в училище, това знаете. Искам да Ви насоча към нещо. Има една пещера в България до Белоградчик. Казва се Магурата. Там има много пиктограми и 24 Букви от Българицата ( Вашата Кирилица) Който Букви са между 13,000 и 14,000 години. Не са измислени от нас. Това са най- старите откривани в света. Вероятно сте чували за Коптите в Египет азбуката е същата с две различни Букви. Само че Коптите я имат от 2000 години. Друго нещо. Целия Балкански полуостров и западна Турция имат сходно ДНК. От първите Фермери от последните 10000 години. Целта е да ни изкарат Пришълци. България е най-старата Бяла държава в света. Неможе да си съгласен със всяко копеле без да знаеш целите му. Историята се пише от победителите и е пълна с лъжи.

@thebomb7590

Ай бұрын

Is there a Byzantine ethnicity? I didn't know that my Greek friend. How about explaining the Cerho and Strahota, the names of Cyrill and Methodius before they became priests, how about explaining that they were from a Bulgarian diplomatic family living in the East Roman empire?

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

There was no Byzantine Empire either, it was Eastern Roman Empire - a MULTI-ETHNIC state. There are plenty of historical sources that point to the Bulgarian origin of Konstantin-Cyril and Methodius. The alphabet is indeed invented in the Preslav Literary School.

@marinvalkov9755

Ай бұрын

@@thebomb7590 This is absolutely true. Thanks and have nice day.

Grousset thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns, Procopius recounts: in the old days many Huns,[nb 1] called then Cimmerians, inhabited the lands I mentioned already. They all had a single king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one called Utigur and another called Kutrigur. After their father's death they shared the power and gave their names to the subjected peoples, so that even nowadays some of them are called Utigurs and the others - Kutrigurs.

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

Did the stupid Romans forget that the Scythians and Sarmatians were older than the Huns?

@user-ey6pf2wv4t

Ай бұрын

Exactly. The Bulgarians are the old Traco/Kimmerians. After that Skytians and Huns.

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

@@user-ey6pf2wv4t So these are Eastern Iranian people

@user-gz3oi5ye2v

Ай бұрын

​@@user-fl5mq9kp7g true facts u can't denied so plz shhhhhh.... Be quite you distort things as it's pleased for you interpretations

I'm not arguing, but i have read a new monograph that argues that the elite class (Dulo, which are Turkic) is ruling the majority of people. The majority is from Sarmatian descent. If you look only from a linguistic point of view, you can say that the Bulgarians are of Turkic origin. This has been the view on the subject for some time. In recent years, tombs have been discovered in and around Ukraine, which can now help to look at them from a Paleoanthropology point of view

@sirkydric1999

Ай бұрын

@georginedev951 I think you're right, although I must somewhat disagree with the linguistic point of view, as in modern day Bulgarian there is hundreds of words with Iranian origins, while only few turkic words remain. Most likely, truly, the Bulgars were of Sarmatian descent, but the expansion of the Gökturk Khaganate installed leadership over said tribes and had some mixing. When people see the Dulo sign and the names of the leaders, the Tengriist faith and what not, it is easy to label the Bulgars as turkic steppe nomads, but it is way more nuanced than that.

@cosmopolitanbay9508

Ай бұрын

I would say Scythian-Sarmatian origin ascribing the same meaning to it. Where Asparuh initially settled prior to crossing the Danube was earlier known as Scythia Minor.

@yerekebake2090

18 күн бұрын

@@sirkydric1999 In modern Bulgarian language was influenced by Ottoman language. The Ottoman Türk language was heavily influenced by Arabic and Persian languages. It is obvious that the modern bulgar language has a lot of Persian loan words

@bir_cumle

17 сағат бұрын

​@@sirkydric1999Hello, it was the same in the Ottoman Empire. There were dozens of Persian words. After World War 1, serious work was done to translate the language to its essence. There are still Persian words in Azerbaijani Turkish. Since I'm interacting with this, some word transitions are very normal.

Great video

I have made this video as nuanced and balanced as possible, and hope that you guys and gals enjoy both the information that was given as well as my style. It took a lot of time to recreate some of these historical people and scenes. I tried to include as much historical imagery as possible, but as you might know, there is little content available. Almost all of the paintings that are supposed to depict the ancient Bulgars were made centuries later, anyway. Therefore, I oriented myself on the text descriptions about the Bulgars from ancient sources, but also on the clothing, hairstyles etc. of other steppe peoples of the Ponto-Caspian steppe. The Volga Bulgars were mentioned twice in the video. Maybe it would be a good idea to check out their history in the future. What do you think?

@nenenindonu

Ай бұрын

History of Volga Bulgaria up to the Mongol invasion would be good, a thumbnail or title highlighting the fact that they were the first Turkic tribe to convert to Islam would also attract viewers

@ralitzanikolova9027

Ай бұрын

The name of the Khan is Asparuh not Asparu

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

@@ralitzanikolova9027 yes, that’s how it was written in the video. The subtitles were automatically generated and got it wrong.

@yovcho66

Ай бұрын

Historians believe that the ancient Bulgarians spoke a language that is from a different group compared to today's Bulgarian. Some researchers attribute the speech of our ancestors to the Turkic languages, and others to the Iranian ones. None of the two groups of specialists explain the mystery: Why is there not a single Turkic or Iranian word in the entire Old Bulgarian equestrian terminology? Neither кон - horse nor кобила, жребец, седло, юзда, стреме, лък, тулъ (колчан), стрела, тетива, острие, яздя, ездач - mare, stallion, saddle, bridle, stirrup, bow, quiver, arrow, string, blade, ride, rider, etc. do not belong to the Turkic or Iranian linguistic wealth. On the other hand, in the Thracian onomastics we find Kone, Kobilatus, tula-, Uzdika, Asdul, Ezdikaya, etc., but this apparently does not affect anyone. It is as if there is a taboo that any connection between the old Bulgarians and the local Balkan population should be avoided. Even if we did not have the Thracian words indicating that the Bulgarian equestrian terminology is of Balkan origin, the scholars were well aware of what a serious problem the complete lack of Iranian or Turkic terms was, and of course this was not shared neither with the students or with the general public .

@ruimateus310

Ай бұрын

I hope you to continue making videos about the Bulgars as well other Turkic Peoples,like Avars Magyars,Pechnegs,Cumans etc. My congrats ,from Portugal,for your work.

War with the Byzantines Agathias (c. 579-582) wrote: ...all of them are called in general Scythians and Huns in particular according to their nation. Thus, some are Koutrigours or Outigours and yet others are Oultizurs and Bourougounds... the Oultizurs and Bourougounds were known up to the time of the Emperor Leo (457-474) and the Romans of that time and appeared to have been strong.

Rise of nations .the soundtrack😊😊😊

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

Someone noticed! Awesome.

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

@@SolidSharkOFFICIAL Rise of Nations that was mentioned here was released in 2003. It was a real time strategy game about civilizations and warfare. It has nothing to do with the other child‘s game of the same game. Educate yourself before preaching onto others.

I was born Close to volga river so like between Varna and volga river

Your consistency still inspires me in my research for proto indo european studies and religious studies that connects us all throughout pre Abrahamic religions and cultures, further more I deeply cherish and love your dedication to the studies of ancient past cultures and peoples of that time and era 😊❤ hail!

Very interesting fakts about Bulgars nations. Thx

@user-ey6pf2wv4t

Ай бұрын

But not the trueth.

As Bulgarian I appreciate this work, we are still remembering our old roots, despite the long historical changes

@antonbarbet3971

Ай бұрын

Bulgarians are Iranian origin from Volga River the region of Sarmatians. Turk is mongolian and Turkey itself have Greek and Armenian DNA just the way Azeris genetically are 100% Persian. Long Live Aryan Bulgarians🇮🇷❤️‍🔥🇧🇬 watch this page @ossetian_great Bulgaria empire was located in North Caucus

@kristiyanpeev9574

Ай бұрын

Turkic roots are not Bulgarian roots.

@aleksandartelbis8258

Ай бұрын

@@kristiyanpeev9574 Watch the video again and you’ll understand

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

You have to be some pretty stupid one I guess... We Bulgarians, and our Proto-Bulgarian ancestors have NO connection with any Turkic people or Iranian people. Individuals like you are delusional and have to be cured...

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

You are not Bulgarian! You are a fake account with foreign name and have no connection with Bulgarians. I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

So Exciting letsss gooooo!!!!!, I’m more connected to this side of the Turkic nation!

Fun fact; Timur called Tokthamysh as “Bulgar Khan”

@user-br8ou7ej8m

Ай бұрын

ТоктамЪш хан! -не ТоктамИш...👍🇧🇬🫶

@sabercho2

Ай бұрын

@altaigigachad I have read that, but never understood why. There is no information online. Do you know anything more?

@AltaicGigachad

Ай бұрын

@@sabercho2 well an Armenian sources in 13 century interestingly referred Chinggis Khan also as a “Bulgar”. the sources says “the Bulghar, from which came the Tartar family Hogta-khan, son of Chankzhan (i.e. Genghis Khan), Khulavu-khan, son of Hogtagha-khan, Abagha Khan…” but I think that medieval people thought that Mongols were part of the Turkic people because even Qalawun said to a crusader that Turks and mongols were from the same race.

@AltaicGigachad

Ай бұрын

@@sabercho2 or maybe due the regional name which he ruled “Volga Bulgaria”

@nikolaiivanov8208

Ай бұрын

I didn't knew about that. Thanks. It's very possible the Armenians, who knew the Bulgars from earlier to have named all following stepe nomads as Bulgars, like the Buzantinians referred to all such as Skythians. In the case of Timur, apart from the conquered Volga Bulgaria, it's possible also common tribal ancestor, like Dulo for example.

Bulgars also used Turkic titles like Boila & Kavkhan integrating some into Slavic for instance the popular name Boris derives from the Turkic Bars (Leopard) while the Slavic title Boyar originates from Boila

@jivkotodorov84

Ай бұрын

olso Tarkhan, The name Borris come from word borri mean wolf,

@AltaicGigachad

Ай бұрын

@@jivkotodorov84the Qaghan title was also used by Simeon the great in his letter to the Byzantine emperor.

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

​@@AltaicGigachadSo the Seljuks are from the Persians, because the Romans say that the Seljuks are from the Persians 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@EverestElbrus

Ай бұрын

@@user-fl5mq9kp7gseljuqs were turks,and persians were their slave

@user-gz3oi5ye2v

Ай бұрын

Boris from turkic bars ?!!! You are clearly mental 🤣🤣🤣

14:42-14:44 ongal means angle cause it creates the form of angle between the danube and the black sea...this is the cradle of the bulgarian state,unlawfuly given by the russians to romania ,as a compensation for moldavia,as like it was their teritorrie to give to somebody.....

Very interesting. My ancestors were not from this region of the world but were from Mexico of Spanish & Ingenious Mexican descent, and the other side of the family were French Canadian. I've always been interested in cultures from Asia and the Middle East.

An amazing video...

@debnadaebna9981

3 күн бұрын

An amazing Ahmet Turkish trol.

Ask yourself if it is possible for a newly created country to be called Old Great Bulgaria by the Roman chronographs and you will understand that the whole video is one big lie.

Greetings from Bulgaria. Interesting theories. Modern Bulgarians have Slavic, Bulgarian, but let's not forget the ancient Thracian blood.

@plamenpetrov3806

Ай бұрын

There is no thracian blood apart through the byzantine line🙂

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

@@plamenpetrov3806 HJAHAHAHAHHAHAHA you are delusional :))) Ofc we have Thracian blood, and ofc it is not "through the byzantine line" :))) BAS anthropology showed that the Thracian black sea/pontic type is PREDOMINANT in Bulgarians. :)) Also we have 0 Turkic or Iranian components. The same results are in EVERY genetical research. You are uneducated illiterate parrot.

Great video. We are now left with the enigma of Sarmathians. Is that the beginning of what latter became Slavs? Question open, what happened to the original culture and language of the Schitians? What is diferent between Sarmats and Schitians besides geographic designation? Is it possible that Sarmats picked up turkic language after falling under Gokturks and brought it back to Europe? ,or kept their culture, language, and traditions. Is it possible that in the Gokturkic federation all spoke just turkic? Did people included in their confederation kept their original language and custom and when all fell appart they took independence? And also what happened to the Tracian and Gaeto-Dacian culture and language n the Balkans? How is it possible to have. 7 Slavic tribes when first mentioned in 17 Century by Russian Court. So, Trachians just evaporated? Impossible.The story of tangrism is a mixed bag, and if present, they melted away fast when they met the tracian helenised believes in the Balkans. Did Sarmats, Dachians, and Gaeti speak Trachian language or offshoot of it? How did that influence the nation creation when turks arrived later? Why did people of Sarmatogeteusa speak Dachian and not Turkic?There is still lots of grey. One thing is certain there were no 7 Slavic tribes in the Balkans as Russian inperial theory implied. If people living there and Asparuh's people spoke, the same or similar language was only natural to come south of the river. Byzantium had no choice. Centuries of pulling resources and man power for Rome or Byzantium were mostly over. That explains "sudden" rise. It has been said now that Bulgarians were present in the Balkans in the 4th and 5th century by Byzantine sources. That if true will contradict Slavic and Turkic narratives upside down. Is has been written in the old texts but chosen to be overlooked. Goes back to the Seapeople for which of course it has been said again "we can not explain were they come from?. From across the pond!

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

This was a great and informative video. As the son of an immigrant from Croatia, I appreciated your video creation involving the Balkans. I read that scathing comment from one of your followers. I hope you do not delete this video. Many months ago, on my Vlog, Restaurant Adventures with Steve Yuri, I was comparing Croatian food to Serbian food, and I received a few negative comments from Croatian viewers. One was particularly nasty. He also wanted me to delete my video. But I kept it up, because I know that the owners of the Serbian restaurant I was reviewing really appreciated my video creation. So, please keep doing what you are doing. The majority of your viewers love your videos.

This is an incredible video. Your channel has come so far and so fast, its inspiring. I wish you all the best and keep feeding me this steppe Turk history. Wonderful. When I visted Turkey I was suprised that the local fishermen kept an eye fixed to all their boats to prevent "evil". In such a staunch Muslim country this surprised me. Is this a hint of old Tengrist beliefs? I know all fishermen are superstitious, but this seemed odd. Saw the eye in your video and started to ponder............

@dahanler1599

Ай бұрын

I wish our only Tengrist belief would be the blue eye 🧿 we have too many non-sensical, partly harmful beliefs that we can’t get rid of. Especially women follow these traditions fiercely, despite Islamists telling them again and again that these are forbidden in Islam.

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

​@@dahanler1599 Are you Turkish or Greek?

@skladzasnimki6th818

Ай бұрын

I think the eye at the bows of a boat can be seen on ceramics (amphora and the such) from the times of Homer... so it must be from at least from the times of the ancient Greeks.

@skladzasnimki6th818

Ай бұрын

@@dahanler1599 all religions today bring more harm than good. Long live science and reason.

Are you going to make a video about Hungarians as well?

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

I've consulted a few fellow Hungarian followers about Hungarian sources and views about Magyar ancestry, and the Magyars are next in my schedule. I do feel confident about it. Alas, I will chose a different approach. I read your other comment and would like to hear your opinion about the Magyars, too. Feel free to contact me: info@thekhansden.com

Like

Love it ❤ Real History 😊

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

Fake video with 0% truth to it. :)

Алга българ-огур🇧🇬💪❤️🐺

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

Ти си турчин или циганин, не си българин.

Bulghar (Next mountain) The people of next mountain

Great content . This is the part of their history , today's Bulgarians do not like to talk about or even admit Turkic roots .

@lyudmilpetrov79

Ай бұрын

Read what Herodotus wrote about Thracians, the most after Indians, so where did they disappeared so the Bulgarians to come...?

@SeamanX-qh9bw

Ай бұрын

Yeah , the Thracians were named petrov , like you . And stop quoting Herodotus who was just a story teller - he also said the Persians were 2.5 millions when they invaded Greece and Thrace . By the time the Slavs and the Bolgars showed up in the Balkans , Thracians were history for a while , killed , assimilated , eliminated , decimated by Justinian plague . Understand, petrov ? @@lyudmilpetrov79

@user-br8ou7ej8m

Ай бұрын

​@@lyudmilpetrov79траките са асимилирани от Римската империя 6 века преди да нахлуят българ-огурите на Балканите,демек българите на Аспарух са се биели с ромеизирани(траки)..българите са Туранци-съвсем друг народ!

@SeamanX-qh9bw

Ай бұрын

Herodouts wrote crap - he never counted the number of the Thracians or the Indians . Also he wrote about the Persians which invaded Greece and Thrace that were 2,5 million - utter crap . And when you are called Lyudmil Petrov, for sure you are not Thracian but Slav . Not to talk about how many are Turks and Gypsyes , in your country .@@lyudmilpetrov79

@kristiyanpeev9574

Ай бұрын

@@SeamanX-qh9bw I challenge you to investigate Bulgarian genetics - use whatever means you wish and find East Asian or Central Asian ancestry.

The Cyrillic language was invented by Bulgarians

@lyudmilpetrov79

Ай бұрын

българино прочети Георги Раковски и старите автори и ще видиш, че това видео е много наивно и погрешно

@Salvaeusall

Ай бұрын

Nope

@marinvalkov9755

Ай бұрын

@@lyudmilpetrov79 Как да го прочетат, като са мързеливи и тъпи. Гледах едно интервю на Кеворк Кеворкян с едно циганче. Кеворкян го пита; Ходиш ли на училище? Ходя ами, всеки ден. А знаеш кой е ЛЕВСКИ, Апостола . Знам бе Сините от Герена, Само ЛЕВСКИ. Горкия Кеворк сигурно съжалява що го пита. Каквито са ни Депутатите и Правителството, такъв ние народа. Той родът си непознава а ние искаме да знаят историята на България.

@DeyanWell

Ай бұрын

@@Salvaeusall saying: „nope“ makes you really uneducated

@vladovlado9614

8 күн бұрын

There is not Cyrillic language.

I have reason to believe that the Bulgars are more nuanced than what is described. The expansion of the Huns and then the Gökturk Khanate crossed paths with the local population (of Sarmatian descent) present in the North Caucasus at the time. Short note on the Sarmatians, they were nomads with Iranian origins who were in the region for many centuries up until that point. In the modern Bulgarian language there are hundreds upon hundreds of words that remain, that are not slavic and come from Iranian origins, some of which are most common being ofcourse 'Kuche' (dog) and 'Kushta' (house), which would be 'Pes' and 'Dom' in the slavic tongue. An old bulgarian historical view is that the Bulgars were an ancient iranic people group that migrated from the 'Bulhara' mountains and settled in the North Caucasus and Dniepr areas. They might have not been even known as Bulgars during those times and were just a part of the Sarmatian tribes. The name 'Bulgars' could have come in as a term after the takeover of the Huns, then Gökturk Khanates as turkic people moved into the area, intertwined and leaders from said states became the heads of these tribes. If you take the names of the leaders, 'Dulo' clan name, the Tengriist faith and the symbol of the state, it is easy to label the Bulgars as turkic steppe nomads, while the reality could very well be although some were turkic steppe nomads, not everyone that made up their ethno-genesis was. It would simply not explain why the Bulgarian language is so filled with iranic origin words while only few remain of turkic origin, taking into consideration the 500 years of Ottoman rule over Danubian Bulgaria. As is known, migrations do not fully wipe out cultures and peoples, they just intertwine, seen alone as the makeup of the Bulgarians is Bulgars, Slavs, and other peoples native to the Balkan area, Thracians, Greeks etc. Some sources I've read mention that the free religious beliefs of the Bulgars stem from Zoroastrian beliefs. In the Alan language, what is described as a 'person beyond the mountains' (when the Alans settled in the Caucasus) was the name of the bulgars as a tribe and were possible seen as people with similiar origins. What is known though is that the Bulgars fought alongside Attila, some settled in Pannonia, others became 'Foederati' of the Byzentine Empire, many became mercenaries and were used in Belisarius' campaigns. They do have a rich history on their own. That is why I believe the Bulgars were an amalagamation of primarily Sarmatians, secondarily Turkic peoples with Turkic leadership.

@user-gz3oi5ye2v

Ай бұрын

I fully agree with ur opinion,even greek chroniclers called Bulgarians as a Scythians and i can tell u another old word from our language we still used its "Dare" which it means river and its an iranic word true evidence of the past its not accidentally for sure !!

@yuksi22

Ай бұрын

It is normal to see Iranian origin words in the bulgarian language. There are many turkish words from Iranian origin, too.After all, the Persian Empire was very influential and had a left impact to the region . However, this does not make the bulgars Iranians

@user-gz3oi5ye2v

Ай бұрын

@@yuksi22 dude go do something else, history its not ur best first of all persia has nothing to do with north black sea region for what impact u talking about and second yes its a prove iranian old words in Bulgarian language its a big prove fof the past for greek chroniclers who called Bulgarians as Scythians too and third a DNA of Bulgarians prove that there are no turkic left behind from the past so many facts and u still trying to tell me its not pathetic don't make laugh more from ur stupidity plz

@user-gz3oi5ye2v

Ай бұрын

@@yuksi22 what impact in northern black sea region u talking about at that time for example why is not influent Volga Bulgarians by persians but Danube's Bulgaria do u talking about?! Its easy for u to believe in nonsense plz do something else its better than spamming!!!

@yuksi22

Ай бұрын

@user-gz3oi5ye2v ,how do you know that in the volga bulgars there is not worrds from iranian origin. What you talking about? Go back to school and learn some history. Stop with this nonsense.

Musalla means prayer mate Or place of prayer

As you can see in the comments, some Bulgarians nowadays (assumingly Slavs) have big issues and complexity about their historical identity. Surely everyone wants to subscribe to the "developed" and white race. But even the names they used in old Bulgaria tells you who they are. People there are actually decided. I have some good "real Bulgarian" friends who admit their Turkic history and there are also the Slavic Bulgarians (belonging to Slavic or new Bulgaria) who would be irritated if you remind them where Bulgaria comes from and get furious. Countries with nomadic background you don't know who is who, but certainly their demography changes up to 90 percent for sure. All that said, the 50 years of Communist propaganda certainly didn't help either and poisoned generations. Note that turkic people also have notable differences among them. To find what united them, you really need to go several thousand years around Altay. From evolutionary point of view, people change as well as mix wherever they go. Especially the nomadic people. And people in central Asia were real nomads by all means. An interesting fact is also that you'll find common Turkic words in places like: Hungary, Korea, Turkey, Mongolia, Siberia, central Asian countries and even Japan.

In Bulgaria there has always been a mess on this topic, many theories, a lot of politics involved. People's preferences play big role as well.

@lyudmilpetrov79

Ай бұрын

българино прочети Георги Раковски и старите автори и ще видиш, че това видео е много наивно и погрешно

@lyudmilpetrov79

Ай бұрын

българино прочети Георги Раковски и старите автори и ще видиш, че това видео е много наивно и погрешно

@NikolayNikoloff

Ай бұрын

@@lyudmilpetrov79 copy-paste празен аргумент, определено ги чаткаш нещата ...

@kristiyanpeev9574

Ай бұрын

@@lyudmilpetrov79 Георги Раковски, с цялото ми огромно уважение към него, работи, живее и проучва през 19ти век. Тогава не сме имали богатите археологични находки и достъп до мащабни генетични изследвания които имаме днес. Тук включвам не само тези подкрепящи местният-балкански произход на прабългарите а като цяло всички допринесли към разните теории включително Васил Златарски и Ганчо Ценов. Този клип е абсолютна тюркофилска боза, тук съм доста съгласен. Но, за един по-обективен и обхваштащ поглед спрямо прабъларите конкретно, дълбоко препоръчвам новата книга на Тодор Чобанов: "Произходът на прабългарите. Дебатът през XXI век". В нея той разглежда и хронологически описва всички теории от средновековието до ден днешен, техните разни защитници, както и разните методи използвани до стигането до заключенията им, и най-накрая сумарно в модерно време до ден днешен каква е обективната картинка.

@nikolapetrov7711

Ай бұрын

@@NikolayNikoloff Ти много ги чаткаш, тюркоман-безродник. Само турци и псевдобългари поддържат тюркската пропагандна теза, която дори вече не е актуална в историческата наука. Пл-ю-я на такива като вас.

Bulgaria and the Bulgarian people are much more ancient than what is said in the schools and what is written in the textbooks. There have also been several Bulgarias in different places around the world. And we cannot say that Bulgaria was a Turkic nation !!!

Good afternoon ❤🇧🇬🦾😇👋

However, given the common Turkic genetic background of the Bulgars and Khazars, these ethnicities may be difficult to tell apart either archaeologically or genetically. Mikheyev, Alexander & Qiu, Lijun & Zarubin, A. & Moshkov, Nikita & Orlov, Yuri & Chartier, Duane & Faleeva, T. & Kornienko, Igor & Klyuchnikov, Vladimir & Batieva, Elena & Tatarinova, Tatiana. (2019). Diverse genetic origins of medieval steppe nomad conquerors. According to Neparáczki: "From all recent and archaic populations tested the Volga Tatars show the smallest genetic distance to the entire Conqueror population" and "a direct genetic relation of the Conquerors to Onogur-Bulgar ancestors of these groups is very feasible."

@marinvalkov9755

Ай бұрын

I will tell you something. You never will learn the truth from European, Russian, the Fucken Anglo-Saxons and Jewish. Never. And don't tell me who's Bulgars.

@cosmopolitanbay9508

Ай бұрын

There is no such thing as Turkic genetic background as Turkic is a cultural and linguistic term.

@mirapopova1972

Ай бұрын

Huns /bulgars (they are the same) are genetically proven to be sarmatians(indo-european/indo-iranian ancestry )by the newest scientific researches, despite the turkic influence on them. They also show that nowadays bulgarians still carry big DNA ancestry from them.

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

Today there are like 3 Turkic ethnic groups with Bulgar or Oghuric roots 1. Chuvash (Oghur) 2. Volga Tatars (certainly Kipchakized Oghur) 3. Karachay-Balkars (likely Kipchakized Oghur)

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

Volga Tatars: You mean the Viking Slavs 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@Kickboxer7267

Ай бұрын

@@user-fl5mq9kp7gVolga Tatars are genetically very different from Slavs

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

@@Kickboxer7267 Yes, he has white skin, yellow hair, and is tall. When a nobleman or a king among them dies, they build ships and put the ship in the river and then burn the ship. Of course, these are Turkish customs.

@Reader_curiosity

Ай бұрын

The traveler Ibn Fadlan describe the funeral rituals of the Viking Rus, which included burying a ship with human sacrifices.

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

@@Reader_curiosity He described the Bulgarians because he was on a mission from the Caliph, not the Russians

I am Bulgarian but one of my great grandfathers migrated to the Ottoman Empire in the region of what is now Bulgaria from Chuvashia fleeing Russian persecution. He was a Chuvash bey and was tengrist. That makes me a bulgar. The Kayı tribe is also one of the Dulo group as their tamga isIYI the same as Kubrat’s tamga. So we are related with the ottomans.

@OG-ge8nu

Ай бұрын

Not in particular with the ottomans but for sure the Turks

@zorobutashina5086

Ай бұрын

​@@OG-ge8nuOttomans are Turks. Same thing

@OG-ge8nu

Ай бұрын

@@zorobutashina5086 @zorobutashina5086 yeah sure but not all Turks are Ottoman. Most of the Turks are not. Bulgars have ancestors which are not Ottoman. That is why I wanted to mention this.

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

No, you are not a Bulgarian, you are Turkish troll that pretend to be a Bulgarian. :) Bulgarian have no connection with anything Turkic in history.

@gecata227

15 күн бұрын

Volga Bulgaria may be ia related but it is not true about all Bulgarians

Varna culture?

The Pliska temple may have been in fact a monument erected to commemorate Krum, as the surviving elements of the building are strikingly similar to a number of similar monuments erected for the Turkic qagans in present-day Mongolia. Four other similar structures have been found in Pliska, Madara, and Preslav, all of rectangular or square shape with a north-south or east-west orientation. For the architecture of the “pagan temples” of Bulgaria, see S. Curta, F. (2006). The rise of new powers (800-900). In Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250 (Cambridge Medieval Textbooks, pp. 111-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

@incognitobg

Ай бұрын

True nonsense, have u ever been in those old capitals but to speaking for pagan temples lol 😂😂😂 u dont have any ideas of history omg

When did they become completely slavicized?

@nenenindonu

Ай бұрын

The Dulo Bulgars of the Danube ? In the late 9th century after the Christianization policies of king Boris I

@Nuruddunya

Ай бұрын

@@nenenindonuboris was cuman though

@vilijamkil5937

Ай бұрын

never. google battle for cross in botevgrad bulgaria and you will see true asiatic horde

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

@@Nuruddunya No, he was not! Also Bulgars were not "slavicized" since the Bulgars are the ones that CREATED the first Slavic community, fist Slavic language and literary school. I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

There are byzantine documents that Kubrat spent 10 years in Magnaur schools in Constantinople and got baptized there. The calvary of Emperor Justinian's general Belisarius was mostly from Bulgarian horsemen. His youngest son Alcek, that was christian took 300k bulgars and got settled in Italy around Vesuvius region. This is the reason people from modern day Bulgaria and Italy turned down to be very close genetically, also because a lot of thracians were exported to Rome as slaves and the modern day Bulgaria was mix of bulgars and Slavs AND thracians. Funny how in less than 100 year difference roman documents changed the seven thracian tribes to the seven Slavic tribes. Tangra and Perun and Zeus and Thor are kind of the same god, a thunder deity.

Too much A.I. And the dialogue is sparsely related to the visuals.

Further evidence linking the Balkan Bulgar state to Turkic cultural traditions was the nature of the Bulgars' primary settlement at Pliska, with its resemblance to a steppe encampment, and a Bulgar tradition of stone relief carvings and inscriptions found scattered throughout the eastern Danubian Plain. P. Hupchick, D., 2017. The Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars for Early Medieval Balkan Hegemony. Cham: Springer International Publishing Bulgaria at this time had acquired some traits typical of a barbarian state, because the bellicose tribe of the Bulgars had imported the Turkic traditions of the great steppe into the Balkans. The Old Testament in Byzantium Edited by Paul Magdalino Robert S. Nelson Washington, D.C. :Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection : Distributed by Harvard University Press, c2010. pp. 255

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

Do not say that you are from the Scythians and Sarmatians, and they are older than you 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@vilijamkil5937

Ай бұрын

just google battle for cross in botevgrad bulgaria you will see that you are right. born bandits same as turks

@cosmopolitanbay9508

Ай бұрын

You're probably referring to Pliska being a city made of big rectangular stones, and the choice of a traditional Turkic name for their capital.

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

@@cosmopolitanbay9508 What you say is untruthful. The name Pliska have absolutely no Turkic ethimology, it is 100% Slavic by origin and it was given the the proto-Bulgars. Also there are records of Antique names on the Balkans like Pliskova, Plistos etc. Enough with the Turkish propagation campaign and misleading fantasy statements.

Report this video, for Turkish propaganda with author Emre Yavuz - Turk, who is making Turkish fantasy videos about Bulgarian history.

Bulgars separate 3 main group - one of them move to the Europe - lost language and etnical identity and became Bulgarians, other stay at motherland and defeat by Mongol empire and mixed with Kipchak turks which was big part of mongol army and lost his name and become Khazan Tatars. Other group moce to the Caucases and meet other Turks(Karachays) and became part of Circasians and save etnicity, language but still little nation by the name Balkars.

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

Bulgarians and our ancestors from the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages (called by the historians as Proto-Bulgarians), are proven to be one and the same people. By DNA origin, by language, by traditions, by everything. We have absolutely NO connection in history with anything Turkic people, especially the nomadic Oggurs. This ridiculous. The Turkic theory has long been out of date and invalid in historical science, regarding the origin of the Balkan populations such as Serbs, Bulgarians, etc., because it is known to have been imposed from the outside for political reasons during the times of rebellions and freedom struggles from the Ottomans. This theory and its variants were promoted and developed by the German, Austro-Hungarian schools of history, so that Bulgarian ethnic group should not form a big and strong state on the Balkans in the times of struggles for liberation. It was also particularly popular with the Serbs in early stages of their historical science, who are said to be descended from Huns, Sorbs and Turkic population around Volga, Meotid lake etc. This theory has no actual factology, only speculation (99% linguistical speculation). Not a single real scientific fact... After the fall of the communism in 1989 the question of the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians was opened again and the Turkic theory of the origin of Proto-Bulgarians was put aside as one of the other theories.. In 2011 it was officially thrown away of the historical diaspora. We all know it was mostly political theory anyway Also there were several genetical researches from 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2022 that completely debunked the "mystery" and proven that the Proto-Bulgarians were 100% WESTeurasian people as the ones that live in Eastern Europe for thousands of years. /For ppl who don't know, the term Eurasia, which geneticists use, designates the total land mass of the continents of Europe + Asia as one common area. Western Eurasia is Eastern and Southeastern Europe when it comes specifically to genetic research./ Even Britannica was updated. Before it claimed that Bulgars were Turkic, now it says they are WESTeurasian, because of the newest genetical researches... "Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations." - Britannica - Bulgar The "Turkic theory" was already totally disproven by every modern scientific discipline - critical historical analysis, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, paleogenetics/archaeogenetics, and genetics in general, etc. The official anthropological and genetic studies have categorically proved that the Proto-Bulgarians were the majority of the population. This is an officially recognized and supported opinion at the moment because all the results show it. Let's also summarize that there is no genetic difference between the proto-Bulgarians and today's Bulgarians - it has been proven that we are one and the same people, not some "separate" and "different" groups of people, i.e. there are only Bulgarians. We are the direct successors of those people. We carry their genes, culture, name, language everything. This was clearly shown by several disciplines, and the genetic shift is so minimal that it cannot even justify the elapsed time from the 8th-9th-10th century to today. (It was BS theory anyway, since it was originally foreign polit-historical thesis (German, Austro-Hungarian, Romano-Russian) and pushed here from outside, and then maintained by Bulgarian peddlers and mediocre "scientists") These are the facts, no matter how much you don't like it from a personal point of view or grudge. What you "like" and what you don't "like" has nothing to do with reality and the correct exact science and its progress over time, with the replacement of the outdated anti-scientific theories, officially accepted through non-scientific means, but under political pressure. ---- - "We found no evidence of East Asian and African haplogroups. Thus, our results do not support theories of Мongоlo-Altaic and Hun-Тatаriс origins of proto-Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are positioned among South-Eastern and Southern European populations including modern Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are genetically distant from Northern and Western Europeans and populations from the Near East and Caucasus." - "On the greatest distance from Proto-Bulgarians are Volga-Ural and Arabic populations." - "Our results therefore suggest that proto-Bulgarians are genetically similar to modern Bulgarians and to certain South-Eastern European as well as Italian populations." Those quotes are from the official 6-year long genetical research made by BAS (The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), MU (Medical University of Sofia), Florence University of Italy and Pavia University of Italy, with DNA samples of the same Proto-Bulgars that you are speaking off. In the first years they took 13 DNA probes from the teeth of 13 people, 100% proven to be Proto-Bulgars, by archeologists. Later they took more. The results: 1. They are all homogenous, which shows one ethnicity, not a product of mixed people. 2. They are proven to be the same as the modern Bulgarians - the only difference is the elapsed time from the 8th-9th-10th century to present day. 3. They are all 100% South-Eastern and Southern European Balkan people by origin! Sharing haplogropups as the ones that live in South-Eastern and Southern Europe for thousands of years. NO Turkic, Iranian, or any Asiatic connection whatsoever. Zero.

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

Bulgarians, Romanians and Croats have the highest percentage of Slavic genes in the Balkans - around 50% to 60%, while Greeks have the lowest percentage of Slavic genes - 4% to 20%, according to DNA research from Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Albania and Greece, the Serbian Tanjug reported.

@AndreasGeorgoglou

22 сағат бұрын

Greeks and Albania's are the most closely related DNA in the Balkans of all peoples 80% identical

Жалка, нескопосана работа.

Yorumları okuyunca anladımki Osmanlı iyi yapmış bu mankurtlara

despite of drastic changes, wether modern Bulgaria sees itself descendants of proto Turkic Bulgars or something else, by keeping the name Bulgaria of the modern Balkan Republic deserves respect by all Turkic nations. we wish them long life and prosperity

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

They are not Turkish

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

@@user-fl5mq9kp7gYou should know the difference between Anatolain Turkish people and Turkic peoples in general by now. I know that you have watched quite a few of my videos, and I am disappointed by that lack of knowldege.

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

@@KhansDen My friend, I am only talking about the Volga Bulgarians. According to the contemporary Muslim traveler Ibn Fadlan, when he declared these people and spoke to their king so that they would become Muslims, Ahmed bin Fadlan described these Bulgarians as being tall, with yellow hair, and tattoos. When he spoke to their king, he said that we are from The Saqalba people (Slavs) and the most recent kings told me that the Turkish king Attila took a large number of his people and went to the west to fight the Romans.

@KhansDen

Ай бұрын

@@user-fl5mq9kp7gAh, never mind. I take it back. Got a little confused after reading some other strange comments here before. Apologies.

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

@@KhansDen Question, brother: Do the Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Croats have similarities with the Turks because they came from Central Asia?

We still read history through wars, rulers and territories. That's understandable. The Bulgarians have a lot to say in this regard :)). However, there is another aspect that really sets these people apart - the culture. Bulgaria arose between two great civilizations - the Greek and the Latin, in the place of a third one, about which we know extremely little - the Thracian. The Bulgars didn't just unite with the Slavs, they somehow created a lasting statehood with the local Thracians. Caught between the Greek and Latin worlds, they had the audacity and vision to create their own civilization. And here is their unique contribution to history - the Cyrillic alphabet. Their greatest victory is not on the battlefield, but in culture. The Bulgarians, creating the Cyrillic alphabet and the medieval literary schools, exerting an extraordinary influence throughout Eastern Europe. Five years ago, the Russian Patriarch Kirill said "Without the Bulgarians and the Cyrillic alphabet, today there would be no Russia, we would all be Latinized". Indeed, the first patriarchs of Russia were ethnic Bulgarians, the first church books were actually in Old Bulgarian or Church Slavonic. If we go back 1400 years in the history of Europe, we will not see any of the modern countries except Bulgaria. This resilience distinguishes the Bulgarians, and the Cyrillic alphabet is at its foundation. This is a key lesson that we can learn in modern times. Material culture is very important - fortresses , territories and resources. We still think through these categories today. But even more important is the building of culture. This is what has preserved these Bulgarians for so many centuries. We need to learn to read history beyond wars, territories and material resources.

@kristiyanpeev9574

Ай бұрын

Beautiful comment and statement.

@kristiyanpeev9574

Ай бұрын

Ще си позволя да цитирам покойния български писател Йордан Радичков: "От цялата човешка история е останало само онова, което е изградено от камък и слово. В някои отношения словото даже превъзхожда камъка. Храмовете, изградени от него, са останали непокътнати, без никаква пукнатина в себе си, за разлика от каменните храмове. У нас словото продължава да има магическа сила. Българите много добре са разбирали неговата изключително голяма мощ. Може да се каже, че ние сме се съхранили през нашите тежки 13 века до голяма степен и чрез словото. Народът ни е казал, че човек не трябва да се бие с дърво, защото с дърво се бият скотовете, а човекът трябва да се бие с думи."

@bartoszszczepaniak169

6 күн бұрын

Thracians were basically gone already. They were already Slavicized or Hellenized, depending on the region.

From Bulgaria!!! SUPER!!!!

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

You are not Bulgarian, stop pretending to be one! Only Turks support such Turkish propaganda crap and offence against the Bulgarian history, culture and origin! Offence against our Bulgarian National origin, making us Turkco-Mongols, which our ancestors we not! Propaganda at best, supported by Turks. Stop making fake profiles and pretend to be Bulgarians, because you are not!

@knazdimitar1245

26 күн бұрын

Fake profile, you are not Bulgarian. :)

Bulgars in Tatarstan, (Formerly Kazan Khanate) speak Kipchak Turk.

@user-fl5mq9kp7g

Ай бұрын

the date: 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@raritica8409

Ай бұрын

@@user-fl5mq9kp7g ?

@nadirhikmetkuleli7335

Ай бұрын

But they were forcibly Kypchakized after Mongol conquest. Their pre-Kypchak language was attested as bit and pieces, that language was also Turkic but Oghur type of Turkic languages.

@raritica8409

Ай бұрын

@@nadirhikmetkuleli7335 But the Mongols didn’t speak Kipchak? How could the Mongols who speak a different language, force that?

@nadirhikmetkuleli7335

Ай бұрын

@@raritica8409 Mongols were not majority. Even in their armies Turkic people (especially Kypchaks) were the bulk of the horde. Only one of every twenty soldiers was a real Mongol. The rest was Turks. After dissolution of Mongol Empire, remaining Mongols that did not return to Mongolia were all Turkicized in a very short time.

As a Pomak-Turk from Bulgaria, i can see the roots of the Turkic era in our family traditions and beliefs from Tengrism in every aspect. Pomak brides look like the Last Queen of Mongolia (TARTARIA) Queen Genepil and we have some really weird ceremonies and rituals but do it with a mix of Islam and Tengrism together. The sources say; Pomaks converted from Christianity to Islam with the Ottomans but this isn’t true at all, because we all fled to the mountains and rivers during Christianization that we could live our beliefs and a lot of the Pomaks are still living there. With the Ottomans we saw similarities in beliefs (Tengrism) and with time we also accepted Islam but still with Tengrism all together what Ottomans used to practice and modern Türkiye Turks practice until to this day. (The Islam of the Arabic nations are Sharia (Qoran) based) but we have beliefs like Mausoleum, Balbals (Kurgan Statues), the number 40 (kırk).

@user-rq6oe2ee4x

Ай бұрын

Тангризмът по българските земи, когато османците идват през 14 век отдавна е бил мъртъв. Просто сте се потурчили къде насила, къде доброволно. Същото както няколко века по-рано, езичниците са приели православното християнство. Днешните българи мюсюлмани така наречени помаци са потомци на населението в Родопите, приело исляма и всички академични среди са единодушни по тоя въпрос.

@yuksi22

Ай бұрын

This is why I can't wait to go back to Bulgaria this summer, and my plans are to go to the pomak region . Hopefully, I will see a traditional wedding in the villages I visit

@user-br8ou7ej8m

Ай бұрын

Да препоръчвам в село Рибново-Гоцеделчевско,там свадбите са забележителни!🇧🇬👍🫶

@balporsugu7046

Ай бұрын

Don't forget the first Muslims who introduced Islam to Balkans were Alevi Bektashi Dervishes. They had kinda similar traditions to Tengri believers and Shamans.

@yuksi22

Ай бұрын

@@user-br8ou7ej8m , благодаря за препоръката. Непременно ще посетим.

Historians believe that the ancient Bulgarians spoke a language that is from a different group compared to today's Bulgarian. Some researchers attribute the speech of our ancestors to the Turkic languages, and others to the Iranian ones. None of the two groups of specialists explain the mystery: Why is there not a single Turkic or Iranian word in the entire Old Bulgarian equestrian terminology? Neither кон - horse nor кобила, жребец, седло, юзда, стреме, лък, тулъ (колчан), стрела, тетива, острие, яздя, ездач - mare, stallion, saddle, bridle, stirrup, bow, quiver, arrow, string, blade, ride, rider, etc. do not belong to the Turkic or Iranian linguistic wealth. On the other hand, in the Thracian onomastics we find Kone, Kobilatus, tula-, Uzdika, Asdul, Ezdikaya, etc., but this apparently does not affect anyone. It is as if there is a taboo that any connection between the old Bulgarians and the local Balkan population should be avoided. Even if we did not have the Thracian words indicating that the Bulgarian equestrian terminology is of Balkan origin, the scholars were well aware of what a serious problem the complete lack of Iranian or Turkic terms was, and of course this was not shared neither with the students or with the general public .

@simonidastankovic2627

Ай бұрын

BRAVO YOVCHO ! All logical and correct...The Thachian link and other okd balcanic links are the right paths....and culturaly and lynguisticaly - the Thrachian words that you have mentiined are ethimogicaly and linguusticaly very close to Slavic which proves that ancient Slavic and old Helm or balkanic (Thracian, Dacian,Dardanian, Mesian, Dalmatian, Ilyrian, Macedonian) - are essentialy - the same - One People, many tribes. And these were tve origins of our Bulgarian brotbers as well. Of course, there are Turcic elements as:w3ll, especially tbe name Blgars, Bulgars, Bugars, but itbis related to o e leadi g group of wariors from Bulgar Khagabat who invaded tbe lands in what became Bulgaria and since being the rulling class at the begining at least - they left the name fir tge newly formed country and probably the first rulli g Dinasty....but that was intermixed and melted very soon in the ocean of Slavonic and other balkanic people living on that teritorry.

@cosmopolitanbay9508

Ай бұрын

In fact there are historians who believe they were both Turkic and Iranian speakers. Some claim the ruling elite was Turkic, other Iranian, or both. But they surely were ruled by the Gokturks, which in itself explains a lot of the Turkic influence.

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

@@cosmopolitanbay9508 I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

@zipperpillow

14 күн бұрын

@@stefanchaushev4732 Many homespun KZread videos purporting to tell the "History" of this people or that people are pure cartoon fantasies from 3 or 4 generations ago. You are not alone. Publishing bad history is what youtube does.

@user-br8ou7ej8m

3 күн бұрын

Кон,стреме,лък...-не е на езика на Аспарух..!

До конца подлинная история скифского (до-гуннского) племени булгар не раскрыта. Предками булгар в Европе были догреческое население Балкан пелары (после греческого вторжения) часть пелар ушла на С.-В. до слияния Камы с Волгой и основали город Пелар -самый крупный город Европы в X веке. Таким образом наследниками ваногуров "Царских скифов" Приазовья (см. Скандинавские саги) являются волжские булгары, сами ассимилировавшие местные славянские и финно-угорские племена. Тамга шилк-эльтавара Кубрата совпадает с древнейшим обозначением Бога у пелар и этрусков, когда о славянах в Европе еще и не слышали.

Admin full support for you. Can you give information about Magyars too? You can enrich historical truth adding the scientific datas of dna companies to your videos. Also, can you ban some people who lack communication manner and know no words other than swearing? Their comments aren't visible, but they create unnecessary crowds.

@debnadaebna9981

17 күн бұрын

How many comments do you have and how much do they pay you in Turkey to troll? How many fake accounts are there with your organization and why do you atack the Bulgarian people, culture, history and offend the Bulgarian origin on racial ground? Does Erdogan pay you or somebody else? Why Turks are obsessed with Bulgarian history and you want so badly to present it as Turkic? Can you answer those questions?

@LuthienwithoutBeren

17 күн бұрын

​@@debnadaebna9981However, I have 2 comments. Unlike your 100 comments. You are probably being paid because you have been on this page for 2 months.

@LuthienwithoutBeren

17 күн бұрын

Aand I am not trying to turn Bulgarians into Turks. Because you are Slavs, you don't carry Turk blood. But I myself have Greek blood, I am not ashamed of it, I just wrote this in my other comment. I'm not trying to be Bulgarian. The conclusion I wrote is about Onogundur Bulgars, not proto Bulgarians, I'm not interested in them anyway! I don't care about the Turks in Central Asia too, I am not a pan-Turkist. All I want is for my country to be well, I don't care about others or you, don't worry. Also, I have always thought that Turkish blood is valuable and that not every ordinary nation can have this blood. So bulgarians aren't really a Turk, unfortunately you are attacking the wrong person. I shared my dna result on my page. I didn't make up the results. What do you say about this results and what is your job?

@debnadaebna9981

16 күн бұрын

@@LuthienwithoutBeren Can't you even read??? I am not talking about today Bulgarians, even though it does NOT matter, since modern Bulgarians are THE SAME as Ancient proto-Bulgars! We are the only descendants of the Bulgarians, as our name suggest. I am talking everywhere about the ancient proto-Bulgarians! They have NO connection with any Turkic people, language, history, anything! Stop STEALING Bulgarian history and culture and represent it as Turkic! This is insult on racial matter and national origin! Also you didn't answer me - How many comments do you have and how much do they pay you in Turkey to troll? How many fake accounts are there with your organization and why do you attack the Bulgarian people, culture, history and offend the Bulgarian origin on racial ground?

@LuthienwithoutBeren

16 күн бұрын

​@@debnadaebna9981 Yes, they are not related. Look, read what I wrote carefully. This isn't proto or modern bulgarian anyway, can't you understand? You, bulgarians are people of x, Onogundur Bulgars are people of y. It has nothing to do with you. How can I explain it further? There is only a similarity in name. So, pov, you are trying to turn my Turkic ancestors into bulgarians. you are slavic, you haven't Turkic ancestors. Turks ruled bulgarians, that is it. For the last paragraph you wrote, I suggest you go to a psychologist, this much paranoia is dangerous.

Both Arabic, Armenian and Byzantine sources confirms that bolgars were Turkic specially from the Oghuric Brance.

@georginedev951

Ай бұрын

I'm not arguing, but i have read a new monograph that argues that the elite class (Dulo, which are Turkic) is ruling the majority of people. The majority is from Sarmatian descent. If you look only from a linguistic point of view, you can say that the Bulgarians are of Turkic origin. This has been the view on the subject for some time. In recent years, tombs have been discovered in and around Ukraine, which can now help to look at them from a Paleoanthropology point of view.

@nenenindonu

Ай бұрын

Those recorded sources aren't even needed at all since the Bulgar language is already an attested Turkic language, their Turkic origin has never been a matter of dispute to begin with

@georgigeorgiev3506

Ай бұрын

Има Редица Международни ДНК Изследвания който КАТЕГОРИЧНО ДОКАЗВАТ че БЪЛГАРИТЕ са ИНДО-ЕВРОПЕЙСКИ НАРОД! И НЯМАТ НИЩО ОБЩО НИТО с ТЮРКИ нито с МОНГОЛИ.Това са РУСКИ ИЗМИСЛИЦИ.НЯМА такива ДАННИ.Сега разни Чалми и КАЗАХСКИ МАЙМУНИ, По -НАСЛЕТСТВО останало от Русията ПИШАТ ГЛУПОСТИ.Чети ИЗСЛЕДВАНИЯТА,БЕ ДЕБИЛ!

@user-rq6oe2ee4x

Ай бұрын

​@@nenenindonu it is even in Bulgaria

@AltaicGigachad

Ай бұрын

@@nenenindonu yeah but i wrote it for Bulgarians who claims that bulgars weren’t Turkic 😅

Like Sir Steven Runsiman wrote in hie book. The Bulgarians were invaders who managed to build a nation at the gates of the most powerful empire in the Christian domain.

Are not Dulos a Hunnic tribe? lead by Attila's son? Did they not become the leaders of the Bulgars after their state was demolished by Oghurs and Germanic tribes pressuring from west and east?

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

A very beautiful historical episode about the Bulgars people. The Kingdom of the Bulgars is considered the direct successor to the European Hun Empire through the Onogurs. The Bulgars, together with Khan Kubrat of the Dulo tribe, founded the kingdom of Old Great Bulgaria in the Pontic steppe, which was later annexed by the Khazar kingdom. The Bulgars were then divided into four sections, as Khan Asparuh migrated to southeastern Europe and founded the Danube Bulgar Kingdom. There is confirmed and interesting historical information that the Bulgar leader Alcek immigrated with his group to the Lombard Kingdom in Italy and settled in southern Italy. The Danube Bulgars were able to establish the first Bulgarian Empire in the Danube and defeated the Byzantine Empire in several decisive battles, so that it went through three stages in the first stage: the Asparuh dynasty from the Dulo tribe from 680-803 AD, with a short period for some rulers from another Bulgar tribe, the Uokil. In the second stage: Krum's dynasty from the Dulo tribe, which represents the golden period in military expansions, urban and cultural achievements, and others. As for the third stage, which is the Cometopuli dynasty, it descended from a military leader of Armenian origins and ruled for a short period of time, as their rule was accompanied by the Byzantine Empire’s military campaign against Bulgaria (968-1018), which led to the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire. As for the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185-1422), it represents a second phase different from the first, and some historians suggest that some of the dynasties in the second period are of Cuman origin, such as the Asen dynasty. The Danube Bulgars were able to achieve a political and military alliance with the union of the seven Slavic tribes that migrated to the Danube during the seventh century AD, and this alliance achieved military successes against the Byzantines. It is worth noting that the region south of the Danube was inhabited by Thracian peoples with some Greeks. Several gradual transformations occurred for the Bulgars people in the Danube, as they moved to practice agriculture and settle in cities. The city of Pliska was their first capital, and after they converted to Christianity, they developed other new cities. Even King Omurtag (814-831) was known as a builder, as his reign was marked by a strong development in Bulgarian architecture with a number of important construction projects. After the Kingdom of the Danube Bulgars adopted Christianity in the year 864, Christianity was imposed as an official religion and previous religions were abolished, and the Kingdom of Bulgaria became the cultural center of Slavic Europe, where the Glagolitic alphabet was adopted and the early Cyrillic alphabet was invented shortly after in the capital, Preslav, and soon literature produced in the Slavic language began to appear. Old Church began to spread northward and became the lingua franca of the Balkans and Eastern Europe. The Byzantine Empire played a key role in its attempt to spread Christianity among the Bulgarians and Slavs by sending missionaries, converting local languages in Thrace into written languages, and building local churches. The Byzantines had a great cultural and religious influence on the Kingdom of the Danube Bulgars after its conversion to Christianity. The emergence of the Bogomilian sect during the reign of Tsar Peter I in the tenth century can be considered the most prominent event, as a Gnostic Christian sect was established that rejected the ecclesiastical hierarchy. They did not use the Christian cross and did not build churches, as they sanctified their gifted form and considered their body to be the temple. The Bogomil sect was subjected to severe repression measures, yet they achieved spread and were able to continue until the fourteenth century AD. As for the Turkish influences specific to the Danube Bulgars, they were present in many aspects, whether in the Tengrian religion, language, names, titles, political system, military system, or artistic forms apparent in architecture and others. Of course, there are the Volga Bulgarians, which go back to the founder Kotrag and were affiliated with the Khazar Kingdom. Then they became independent and adopted Islam in the tenth century AD and were able to achieve complete political independence and build a strong kingdom in the southern Volga region, where it was famous in the Middle Ages for its fur trade. There is an interesting historical book, The Cäğfär Taríxı, which most scholars consider to be an apocryphal work, but it contains early historical material on the Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars, and other Eurasian nomads. This book covers the histories of the Danube Bulgars and the Volga Bulgars.

@stefanchaushev4732

Ай бұрын

I am Bulgarian and I have a bachelor's degree in history! This video is misleading to say the least - it's pure fiction. It is true that colleagues supported a similar theory some time ago, but historical science has already revised the sources and historical interpretations, accordingly this Turkic theory has already been rejected and is not supported by any serious specialist. I myself have examined the old historical sources as well as the epigraphical monuments and have made a critical selection and critical examination of many old statements of my colleagues which have been found to be wrong and inaccurate. A number of official genetic studies have already been carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, in partnership with the Medical University and the Universities of Pavia and Florence in Italy. Bulgarian professional archaeologists have provided genetic material from 13 proven necropolises of Proto-Bulgarians and their DNA has already been examined, and the results are that they are extremely identical to today's Bulgarians and do not share the same ancestry with the Turkic and Iranian peoples of ancient times and today.

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

Wikipedia cliché, after cliché, after cliché. Most of what you have written is just old fashioned and untrustworthy, speculative statements. BAS (The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), MU (Medical University of Sofia), Florence University of Italy, Pavia University of Italy, The only professional research, and actually the only one, about the origin of Proto-Bulgarians. With DNA samples from the teeth of 100% proven to be Proto-Bulgars, by professional archeologists. - "We found no evidence of East Asian and African haplogroups. Thus, our results do not support theories of Мongоlo-Altaic and Hun-Тatаriс origins of proto-Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are positioned among South-Eastern and Southern European populations including modern Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are genetically distant from Northern and Western Europeans and populations from the Near East and Caucasus." - "On the greatest distance from Proto-Bulgarians are Volga-Ural and Arabic populations." - "Our results therefore suggest that proto-Bulgarians are genetically similar to modern Bulgarians and to certain South-Eastern European as well as Italian populations." 1. They are all homogenous, which shows one ethnicity, not a product of mixed people. 2. They are proven to be the same as the modern Bulgarians - the only difference is the elapsed time from the 8th-9th-10th century to present day. 2. They are all 100% South-Eastern and Southern European Balkan people by origin! Sharing haplogroups as the ones that live in South-Eastern and Southern Europe for thousands of years. NO Turkic, Iranian, or any Asiatic connection whatsoever. Zero. Also: Here are the typical East and Southeast Asian Y-haplogroups (male-line) that are typical of Turko-Tatar-Mongols and Asians of this type: - N, C, Q, D, O, M Of these 6 listed typical Turko-Mongolian-Asiatic haplogroups in the male line, there is almost no trace in the Balkans, the only ones that occur are Q and N and at a ridiculously low percentage: According to the rich database in EUPEDIA, the haplogroups Q and N in the population from the Balkans are distributed as follows: Region/Haplogroup | Q | N | -------------------------| | | Serbia | 1 | 2.5 | Romania | 0.5 | 1.5 | NORTH Macedonia | 0.5 | 0.5 | Bulgaria | 0.5 | 0.5 | Conclusion: 1. Serbs have the most of the listed. 2. Then there are the Romanians. 3. There is almost no trace of the Bulgarians from Bulgaria and also the former Bulgarians from North Macedonia. 4. In fact, those N, C, Q, D, O, M you can find them mostly in North Europeans such Pols, Fins, Sweds, Russians, Ukrainians etc., but neither proto-Bulgarians or modern Bulgarians carry them, because we all have no connection in history... It is clear for the Bulgarians and proto-Bulgarians that they have nothing in common with the Turko-Tatars-Mongols by origin and this has been known for a long time. It is also known that Bulgarians and proto-Bulgarians are the same people, regardless of origin - we have a completely regional origin. The the female line (mtDNA) of proto-Bulgars is: H, H1, H5, H13, HV1, J, J1, T, T2 and U3 These are typical haplogroups for the region. All of them are of Southern and Southeastern European origin and all of them are found among the individuals who lived in Southeastern Europe several millennia ago, which are also published by Iain Mathieson 2017-2018 from the data of "The genomic history of Southeastern Europe", with over 200 ancient genomes from the Bronze and Neolithic ages from Bulgaria and the Balkans. Linguistically there is also 0 evidence of Turkic speaking Bulgars, only pseudoscientific speculation. Now let those facts sink in your tiny, hateful brain and remember them the next time you want to spam BS on the topic.

@knazdimitar1245

26 күн бұрын

@@debnadaebna9981 Bravo, enough of those Wikipedia Turkish clown.

Idel Bulgars were Oghur Turkic people like Khazar and modern day Chuvash people. After Mongol invasion Kypchak Turkic become more dominant and Idel Bulgars adopt Mongolian tribe name Tatar. Later Mongols in Altyn Orda converted to islam and assimilated into Kypchak Turkic like Tatar, Nogai and Kazakh cultures.

@yerekebake2090

18 күн бұрын

@@petertodorov9540 The term Tengrism was appeared in 19th century to describe the beliefs of Nomads in Great Steppe before Monotheism. The Tengrism belief does not represent the Turks, because we know the Mongols had a similar belief with the Turks. The same way we know the Buddhist, the Jewish, Christian, Manihei and the Muslim Turks. The Volga Bulgar converted to Islam. The Khazar Turks were Jewish, Christian and Muslim.

@debnadaebna9981

17 күн бұрын

@@yerekebake2090 There is no such thing in history as "Turkic Bulgars", "Idel Bulgar" etc. Proto-Bulgarians never in history practiced "Tengrism", as this is foreign Mongol god. Proto-Bulgarians never in history had such Mongol gods and Proto-Bulgars have no connection with any Turkic people or language. Stop spam fake misconseption about Bulgars and stop insulting their origin and history.

@yerekebake2090

17 күн бұрын

@@debnadaebna9981 What you wrote is wishful thinking. Western, Russian, Japanese, Central Asian, and Turkish historical schools say the Bulgars are definitely Turks. It is a fact.

@debnadaebna9981

16 күн бұрын

@@yerekebake2090 Omg you F Turk will tell me what IS and what is NOT? Really? Also you are illiterate... Again, for the last time: BAS (The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), MU (Medical University of Sofia), Florence University of Italy, Pavia University of Italy, The only professional research, and actually the only one, about the origin of Proto-Bulgarians. With DNA samples from the teeth of 100% proven to be Proto-Bulgars, by professional archeologists. - "We found no evidence of East Asian and African haplogroups. Thus, our results do not support theories of Мongоlo-Altaic and Hun-Тatаriс origins of proto-Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are positioned among South-Eastern and Southern European populations including modern Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are genetically distant from Northern and Western Europeans and populations from the Near East and Caucasus." - "On the greatest distance from Proto-Bulgarians are Volga-Ural and Arabic populations." - "Our results therefore suggest that proto-Bulgarians are genetically similar to modern Bulgarians and to certain South-Eastern European as well as Italian populations." 1. They are all homogenous, which shows one ethnicity, not a product of mixed people. 2. They are proven to be the same as the modern Bulgarians - the only difference is the elapsed time from the 8th-9th-10th century to present day. 2. They are all 100% South-Eastern and Southern European Balkan people by origin! Sharing haplogroups as the ones that live in South-Eastern and Southern Europe for thousands of years. NO Turkic, Iranian, or any Asiatic connection whatsoever. Zero. Also: Here are the typical East and Southeast Asian Y-haplogroups (male-line) that are typical of Turko-Tatar-Mongols and Asians of this type: - N, C, Q, D, O, M Of these 6 listed typical Turko-Mongolian-Asiatic haplogroups in the male line, there is almost no trace in the Balkans, the only ones that occur are Q and N and at a ridiculously low percentage: According to the rich database in EUPEDIA, the haplogroups Q and N in the population from the Balkans are distributed as follows: Region/Haplogroup | Q | N | -------------------------| | | Serbia | 1 | 2.5 | Romania | 0.5 | 1.5 | NORTH Macedonia | 0.5 | 0.5 | Bulgaria | 0.5 | 0.5 | Conclusion: 1. Serbs have the most of the listed. 2. Then there are the Romanians. 3. There is almost no trace of the Bulgarians from Bulgaria and also the former Bulgarians from North Macedonia. 4. In fact, those N, C, Q, D, O, M you can find them mostly in North Europeans such Pols, Fins, Sweds, Russians, Ukrainians etc., but neither proto-Bulgarians or modern Bulgarians carry them, because we all have no connection in history... It is clear for the Bulgarians and proto-Bulgarians that they have nothing in common with the Turko-Tatars-Mongols by origin and this has been known for a long time. It is also known that Bulgarians and proto-Bulgarians are the same people, regardless of origin - we have a completely regional origin. The the female line (mtDNA) of proto-Bulgars is: H, H1, H5, H13, HV1, J, J1, T, T2 and U3 These are typical haplogroups for the region. All of them are of Southern and Southeastern European origin and all of them are found among the individuals who lived in Southeastern Europe several millennia ago, which are also published by Iain Mathieson 2017-2018 from the data of "The genomic history of Southeastern Europe", with over 200 ancient genomes from the Bronze and Neolithic ages from Bulgaria and the Balkans. Linguistically there is also 0 evidence of Turkic speaking Bulgars, only pseudoscientific speculation.

@yerekebake2090

15 күн бұрын

@@petertodorov9540 What about archeological evidence? Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. It is a Bulgarian artifact. It was written in the Proto-Bulgarian language. Also, names and titles that were written in Byzantine Records, show the Turkic origin of Proto-Bulgars.

Great video for the given time frame. We all have to understand that the nation creation of the bulgars is much more ancient and comes from the Balkans as mentioned by old helenistic authors as part of the Tracians. Also suggested by German and French autors citing old celtic history. Others like Italian and Rusian autors who found evidence that "can not be logically explained." So, the spreading of language and culture is from the Balkans and West Asia Minor with migration towards the west, north, and northwest with migrations. All evidence supports that in earlier times, a two-three thousand years before the times of the Old Bulgaria of the Pontic steppe and story of Gok Turks federation, the processes of migration back far as the timesof the Trojan war started. People get wound up too often, too much in patriotic theories that afterward are difficult to explain. Even before starting a given topic conversation, one can simplify try to get the chronology right, and that is a good start since often arguing becimes pointless. Unfortunately, with repeating questionable theories and with mainstream historical educational establishments not willing to see the new mind boggling facts that will turn their teories upside down and last but not least with AI compiling random data the process of searching the truth might becomes a nightmare. As Bolgi, Balgi nation creation is concerned, there is not one but four misconsaptions that facts prove wrong. Slavic, Iranian, Turcic, and Iranian. But of course, everybody can sponsor patriotic content until academics wake up to the reality of iron logic. To the Old Tracian history, there is noting more damaging to the truth than the English-Greek Helenistic historical utopia that the 19 century historians have created and is still being repeated, turning blind eye to science.

The Bulgari where invited into the Roman by the emperor this proved to be a great mistake

Very good and deep explanation! Thanks! Just to add that after Khan Boris, his son Rasate (Vladimir) also tried to bring back Tengrism. Interesting fact is that Bulgaria was the first country with official religion Tengrism in Europe. Greetings from Bulgaria!

@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn

Ай бұрын

Boris I was "Archon" or "Knyaz", not a Khan.

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

You are total illiterate and pseudo-Bulgarian! What "Tangra" and what "Tangrism", when did such things exist in the Bulgarian history, culture and environment? You are delusional ... "Tangra" and "Tangrism" are a product of historical "pseudo-science", they are not a historical fact! This product appeared in a historical environment ONLY as an element of the unreliable, political Turkic theory of the origin of the old Bulgarians, modeled on the Turko-Mongolian "Tengri". (Same as "han" / "khan"/"kan" that we never had or used anywhere) Such a thing has not been written and commented on in history before! Wilhelm Schott, as a prominent representative of this "science", has allowed himself to write an incredibly stupid sentence, in an extremely unscientific way, even published in a report in the Berlin Academy of Sciences, from which short and ridiculous sentence, our native Turkophile fiestas start with the addition of "Tangra" in a Bulgarian environment. Geza Feher and Veselin Beshevliev make fake "translations" from the column under the Madara rocks, where they themselves add 3 times more letters than the existing ones and a complete sentence in the meaning: "brought in sacrifice to the god Tangra" - something that DOES NOT EXIST on the column and that is a fact. Should I repeat you that sentence again? It's all a clumsy fabrication, to which the NON-analytical, stunted brains of some Bulgarian parrots are tied, who have not only attached themselves to the element of Turkic deception, but are so amputated from sense and criticality that instead of exposing the lie, they accept it with closed eyes, parroting it and embellishing it, creating a kind of "Tengrianism" that never existed in the history and culture of Bulgarian people. Bulgarians are known to various authors from the 4th to the 19th century, but for 1500 years, no author defines "Tangra" or "Tangri" as the name of a god among our ancestors. Long before the time of Wilhelm Schott and all the other Turkomans, in many books it is beautifully explained how the Bulgarians call their god: "Deus quidem Bulgarorum lingua Bog dicitur" - "In Bulgarian, the word for the heavenly Father is "Bog"(God)." Mention of what the Bulgarian word for god is already in the era in which Nikitas Choniat (second half of the 12th century) and Euthymius Zygavin (1050-1120) lived ---> Βόγ. (Bog/God) And finally, let's repeat: There is not a single real existing historical evidence that mentions that the Bulgarians had a similar god named "Tangra", "Tangri", "Tengri"! We have no customs, no old rites, no tales, no legends, no lore, nothing in our folklore that contains any record of such a Turko-Mongol deity. Nothing! It was created by historians in order to relate us to those Turks around the Volgo-Urals, Altai, etc. and that anyone with a slightly fresher mind would have guessed! For that you have contributed to a lie by spreading it more and more and based on your personal fantasies! Proto-Bulgarians are the same as us and we are direct descendants of them, with their culture, language, rites everything. Proven by history, genetics, anthropology etc.

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

@@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn Not only Boris, every other Old Bulgarian ruler never heard of such Asiatic titles as "khan" or "kan"... We never in our history used such titles, even before the mass Christianization. Don't belive Wikipedia ...

@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn

Ай бұрын

@@debnadaebna9981 Please read my comment again. I never said Boris was khan. And I don't trust Wikipedia or Britannica. They use outdated sources.

@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn

Ай бұрын

@@petertodorov9540 I've also been to Madara and seen the column in the museum in Sofia. On the column is written "АРХОNОМꙊРТАГ". Kanasubigi means Lord of the army/Lord by God. It was not his official title. The translation should be "...Предводителят на армията/Владетел от Бога Архонт Омуртаг...". The inscription reads "КАН СЮБИГИ ОМУРТАГ Е ОТ БОГА АРХОНТ В ЗЕМЯТА, ГДЕТО СЕ Е РОДИЛ.". "А ИМЕТО НА АРХОНТА Е ОМУРТАГ КАН СЮБИГИ. НЕКА БОГ ДА ГО УДОСТОИ ДА ПРЕЖИВЕЕ СТО ГОДИНИ.". And please stop spreading this nonsense about the Iranian origin of the Bulgar tribe. It is a pseudo history that was debunked long time ago by the modern DNA analysis.

I have waited for this video for a long time, as someone who’s partially of Bulgarian extraction and is currently in the process of learning Turkish (lol). Bulgarian nationalists and revisionists cannot handle the fact that proto-bulgars were Turkic, just out of some antipathy toward Anatolian Turks due to the almost 5 centuries long period of occupation. It is very much regrettable and leads them to spewing nonsense. Anyway, thank you for the video and keep doing your good work, including on Hungarians.

@user-br8ou7ej8m

Ай бұрын

👍👌🇧🇬❤️🐺

@user-br8ou7ej8m

Ай бұрын

Точно казано кардаш👌👍

@skladzasnimki6th818

Ай бұрын

Bulgars were not Turkic. They are closer to proto-Iranians.

@dimitrifaillard9972

Ай бұрын

@@skladzasnimki6th818 That is incorrect and based solely on a desire from some Bulgarian nationalists to distance themselves from Türkiye, even though the Turkic proto-bulgars are very much different from the modern Anatolian Turks and the ottomans more broadly.

@skladzasnimki6th818

Ай бұрын

@@dimitrifaillard9972 That is incorrect and based solely on the desire of some Turkish nationalists to make the Ottoman Empire look less backward, medieval and bloodthirsty by claiming some European peoples as relatives.

I agree this history is true thay came to the Balkans

@debnadaebna9981

3 күн бұрын

This video is Turkish propaganda, not "history".

Due fact of un or non translatable words. Those are original words, that cannot be translated properly because of local phraseology, the Linguistical theory, of countries origin is proven wrong. This is why, we all need genealogical lab researches. Peace

Asparukh, this reminds me an old iranian name😮. Asp or Asb means Horse

@bayramaktas4135

Ай бұрын

Due to same way of life, the Asian and Indo-European steppe peoples came into contact very early, and over time they mixed and spoke Turkish because the Turkic-speaking clans and tribes had power. The Persians also had a great influence on the steppe peoples, so it is not surprising that these peoples also had Iranian names, some of them were Iranian descent anyway.

@incognitobg

Ай бұрын

Yes, on tajik language which is iranian "aspiruhi" it means spirit horse

@Reader_curiosity

Ай бұрын

The name of Asparuh Khan of the First Danube Bulgar Kingdom was common and well known among the Turks. One of the Western Gokturk Khagans was named Ishbara Tolis. This name is of Sanskrit origin. The spread of this name may be due to the spread of Buddhism in the eastern steppes and the expansion of the missionary activity of Buddhist monks. The cultures of different peoples communicate with each other and take from each other.

@incognitobg

Ай бұрын

@@Reader_curiosity why you speaking nonsenses you interpret there is no prove of that but prove is that where it came that name true fact of iranian speaking origins and Kubrat was a cristian as prove of that is founding his treasure and ring confirms that which was found

@Reader_curiosity

Ай бұрын

I have shown that the derivatives of the name of the Bulgar Khan of the Danube, Asparuh, previously existed among the Turks, along with the name of the Gokturk Khagan, Ishbara Tolis. As I mentioned, the cultures of different peoples interact so that some names and titles of Iranian or Sanskrit origin can be found among the ancient Turks. As for Christianity among the Danube Bulgarians, it is known that the Bulgarian khans maintained their shamanic religion until the year 869, after their official conversion to Orthodox Christianity, and some of the Bulgarian khans even took strict restrictive measures against Christianity. As for Khan Kubrat, he converted to Christianity because of his upbringing in the Byzantine court, and his conversion to Christianity was merely formal. Note that Christian missionary activity in Central Asia has been active since the early Middle Ages, and there were church centers in Tashkent, Kashgar, Samarkand, and others. The Hun kings even supported Christian missionary activities. Some Turkish tribes, including the Oghuz, Qarluqs, Uighurs, and others, converted to Christianity since the sixth century AD. Christianity was a well-known religion among the Turks, it had followers, and it had a special bishop in the Nestorian Church who was given the title of “Bishop of the Turks.” Recently, archaeologists discovered a Nestorian church belonging to the Qarluq Turks in southern Kazakhstan dating back to the eighth century AD. It is known that most of the Turkish tribes in Eastern Europe have converted to Christianity, including the Pechenegs, Cumans, and others. What indicates the expansion of Christian missionary activities in the steppes during the Middle Ages is that most of the tribes that Genghis Khan was able to unite in his kingdom were Nestorian Christians, and therefore Syriac letters were used to write the Turkish language. Of course, this historical file about the history of Christianity in Central Asia is almost banned, unfortunately, and is rarely touched upon and discussed.

Modern genetic studies of bone material from Bulgarian burials from the period of the early Middle Ages clearly shows that the ethnic appearance of the discovered bodies belongs to the Indo-European group. Archaeologically, the Proto-Bulgarians belong to the Sarmato-Alan cultures. The Proto-Bulgarians as inhabitants of the lands north of the Caucasus in the 2nd century are mentioned by the Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi. In his History of Armenia, written in the 80's of the 5th century AD, he speaks about two migrations of Proto-Bulgarians from Caucasus to Armenia. Proto-Bulgarians lived amongst Sarmato-Alan and Slavic tribes for centuries before migrating to the Balkans. However, Turkic elements could also be found due to the influence of the Huns and the Avars later on. Most of the names of the rulers and aristocrats of the First Bulgarian Empire are of Iranian origin. Names such as Sinnion, Zabergan, Kubrat/Xovrat, Bezmer/Bozmihr, Asparukh, Tervel, Kormes, Sevar, Kardam, Krum, Omurtag/Murtag, Negavon, Okorsis/Korsis, Malamir, Boris, Rasate, etc., are proven to be (Indo)Iranian and generally Indo-European in origin (and etymology) and does not have Turkic analogues. The last pagan ruler of Bulgaria was literally called Persian/Presian. There is NO historical source or evidence of Tengrism in Bulgaria. The only "evidence" that suggests the alleged presence of ''Tangra/Tengri'' in the Bulgarian lands is a damaged fragmentary inscription found near Madara. The argument that the name "Tangra" was written on it has been refuted many times over the years. The title ''Khan'' wasn't used by the Bulgarians because they were not linked to the Göktürks. The correct title is ''Kana subigi'' which comes from the Indo-European *su- and bhaga-, i.e. *su-bhaga and its a direct translation of the Greek phrase ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἄρχων, ho ek Theou archon. And what do you mean ''a variant of the cyrillic alphabet''? Bulgarians literally created it. 2/10 video.

@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn

Ай бұрын

@@thracian2072Stop lying. US National Library of Medicine - "...the Y-chromosome gene pool in modern Bulgarians is primarily represented by Western Eurasian haplogroups with ∼ 40% belonging to haplogroups E-V13 and I-M423, and 20% to R-M17. Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J and G) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively. Haplogroups C, N and Q, distinctive for Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations, occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5%...". "Ancient (proto-) Bulgarians have long been thought of as a Turkic population. However, evidence found in the past three decades shows that this is not the case. Until now, this evidence has not included ancient mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis. To fill this void, we collected human remains from the 8th to the 10th century ad located in three necropolises in Bulgaria: Nojarevo (Silistra region) and Monastery of Mostich (Shumen region), both in northeastern Bulgaria, and Tuhovishte (Satovcha region) in south-western Bulgaria. The phylogenetic analysis of 13 ancient DNA samples (extracted from teeth) identified 12 independent haplotypes, which we further classified into mtDNA haplogroups found in present-day European and western Eurasian populations." - Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian Origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians, D. V. Nesheva, S. Karachanak-Yankova, M. Lari, Y. Yordanov, A. Galabov, D. Caramelli and D. Toncheva, 2015

@thracian2072

Ай бұрын

@@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn Did you even bother referring to my citations before calling me a liar? Nesheva's report on haplogroups did not refer to the autosomal breakdown of the Bulgar genepool. Haplogroups by themselves mean nothing. A person can have an African haplogroup, but still be autosomally majority European and Europoid. You balkanic chauvinistic fantasists simply probably aren't bright enough to appreciate the nuances.

@thracian2072

Ай бұрын

@@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn Nesheva's report is misleading. She probably knows as much about genetics as you do. mtDNA haplogroups say nothing about the general autosomal genetics of the Bulgars. I've provided you the evidence. Deal with it, rather than crying and calling people liars.

@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn

Ай бұрын

@@thracian2072 Yes, you are a liar. You wanted genetic research, and I gave it to you. US National Library of Medicine - "...the Y-chromosome gene pool in modern Bulgarians is primarily represented by Western Eurasian haplogroups with ∼ 40% belonging to haplogroups E-V13 and I-M423, and 20% to R-M17. Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J and G) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively. Haplogroups C, N and Q, distinctive for Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations, occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5%...". "Novel analyses of proto-Bulgarians epigraphic monuments, especially, of the major historical inscription - “the List of the Bulgarian Khans” - have revealed that the proto-Bulgarian language did not belong to the Turkic linguistic family. Therefore, leading turkologists [14]-[16] do not consider proto-Bulgarians a Turkic people, as also attested by the adoption of distinctive calendar systems by the two groups" "Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry", Sena Karachanak, Viola Grugni, Simona Fornarino, Desislava Nesheva, Nadia Al-Zahery, Vincenza Battaglia, Valeria Carossa, Yordan Yordanov, Antonio Torroni, Angel S. Galabov, Draga Toncheva and Ornella Semino, 2013.

@thracian2072

Ай бұрын

@@Gotse.Delchev.Reborn Repeating it doesn't make your point valid. You are simply not bright enough to even understand the basics about genetics. You probably don't even know what an autosomal genome is. You're in over your head. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Khazar - ...ha létezett ..... ! ? :)

Somehow the `Old Bulgars' all magically changed from Asians to Europeans. Funny how it works like that...

@KhansDen

3 күн бұрын

It was stated several times in this video that the old Bulgars were a minority of a few thousand people ruling over a much larger number of non-Asian inhabitants, and that these rulers were assimilated over the centuries. Of course barely any Asian-looking people survived to the 21st century.

@debnadaebna9981

3 күн бұрын

@@KhansDen You can "state" your ridiculous Turkish propaganda all you want, but scientific facts state otherwise: BAS (The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), MU (Medical University of Sofia), Florence University of Italy, Pavia University of Italy, The only professional research, and actually the only one, about the origin of Proto-Bulgarians. With DNA samples from the teeth of 100% proven to be Proto-Bulgars, by professional archeologists. - "We found no evidence of East Asian and African haplogroups. Thus, our results do not support theories of Мongоlo-Altaic and Hun-Тatаriс origins of proto-Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are positioned among South-Eastern and Southern European populations including modern Bulgarians." - "Proto-Bulgarians are genetically distant from Northern and Western Europeans and populations from the Near East and Caucasus." - "On the greatest distance from Proto-Bulgarians are Volga-Ural and Arabic populations." - "Our results therefore suggest that proto-Bulgarians are genetically similar to modern Bulgarians and to certain South-Eastern European as well as Italian populations." 1. They are all homogenous, which shows one ethnicity, not a product of mixed people. 2. They are proven to be the same as the modern Bulgarians - the only difference is the elapsed time from the 8th-9th-10th century to present day. 2. They are all 100% South-Eastern and Southern European Balkan people by origin! Sharing haplogroups as the ones that live in South-Eastern and Southern Europe for thousands of years. NO Turkic, Iranian, or any Asiatic connection whatsoever. Zero. Also: Here are the typical East and Southeast Asian Y-haplogroups (male-line) that are typical of Turko-Tatar-Mongols and Asians of this type: - N, C, Q, D, O, M Of these 6 listed typical Turko-Mongolian-Asiatic haplogroups in the male line, there is almost no trace in the Balkans, the only ones that occur are Q and N and at a ridiculously low percentage: According to the rich database in EUPEDIA, the haplogroups Q and N in the population from the Balkans are distributed as follows: Region/Haplogroup | Q | N | -------------------------| | | Serbia | 1 | 2.5 | Romania | 0.5 | 1.5 | NORTH Macedonia | 0.5 | 0.5 | Bulgaria | 0.5 | 0.5 | Conclusion: 1. Serbs have the most of the listed. 2. Then there are the Romanians. 3. There is almost no trace of the Bulgarians from Bulgaria and also the former Bulgarians from North Macedonia. 4. In fact, those N, C, Q, D, O, M you can find them mostly in North Europeans such Pols, Fins, Sweds, Russians, Ukrainians etc., but neither proto-Bulgarians or modern Bulgarians carry them, because we all have no connection in history... It is clear for the Bulgarians and proto-Bulgarians that they have nothing in common with the Turko-Tatars-Mongols by origin and this has been known for a long time. It is also known that Bulgarians and proto-Bulgarians are the same people, regardless of origin - we have a completely regional origin. The the female line (mtDNA) of proto-Bulgars is: H, H1, H5, H13, HV1, J, J1, T, T2 and U3 These are typical haplogroups for the region. All of them are of Southern and Southeastern European origin and all of them are found among the individuals who lived in Southeastern Europe several millennia ago, which are also published by Iain Mathieson 2017-2018 from the data of "The genomic history of Southeastern Europe", with over 200 ancient genomes from the Bronze and Neolithic ages from Bulgaria and the Balkans. Linguistically there is also 0 evidence of Turkic speaking Bulgars, only pseudoscientific speculation.

@raulepure9840

2 күн бұрын

@@KhansDen People in general tend to reject all that contradicts their modern myths. Regarding old bulgarians, for shure they were already mixed like all other turks with indoeuropeans of the steppe.

One could argue that the USSR was the last Oghuric empire, founded by Oghur Beg Lenin who was an ethnic Chuvash and close friend of Atatürk massively aiding his War of Independence

@monkeymoment6478

Ай бұрын

This is some astronomic levels of mental gymnastics. WE WUZ USSR N SHIET KARA BOGA

@welfomoment5975

Ай бұрын

NEVER cook again lil bro

@nenenindonu

Ай бұрын

​@@monkeymoment6478only Oghuric men can form such Eurasian war machines USSR = Turanic to the bone 😤

@Red6Games

Ай бұрын

God, no. Not the Bolsheviks.

@nenenindonu

Ай бұрын

@@Red6Games idk smoking the Romanovs is a very Turanic flex Soviets are rightfully Oghuric

to all watching this video, take in mind that part of the “likes” (and by extension part of the views) are generated non-organically. that is, by soliciting ppl to like them in exchange for money not sure if the author of this video @khan’s den, is even aware that their video ended up in such a scheme but if they’re, i’d be curious to know more about how it works and what’s the purpose

@KhansDen

26 күн бұрын

Who is soliciting anyone for anything? How? I don't even have the money to hire someone to help me out with the social media accounts. This comment section is full of conspiracy theories and the dislikes are pretty rough, too. If the video has generated that much interest, I am satisfied. But I neither have the intention nor the capacity to "buy" likes or views from anyone. That would be BS and hurt this channel more than it could help.

thanks!👍👍👍

@debnadaebna9981

Ай бұрын

MRysen turchin, gnusen! What thanks, you are not a Bulgarian, and in this video there is only BS, not real history!

I'm sorry to say this, but you guys get the history completely wrong! Especially about the foundation of Old Great Bulgaria, the origins of Bulgars and by the way, the Cyrillic Alphabet is a Bulgarian Heritage that spread all over the slavic people and in central Asia. But, it is a good video. At least the visuals...

The Bulgarians are living for thousands of years where they live now. They are the creators of the European civilization

@alexandrutita4850

10 күн бұрын

:))))))))))

@alexandrutita4850

10 күн бұрын

Bulgare were turks. What do you have to do with Europe?

@TheLostinTheUnknown

10 күн бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

@korkufilmleriscarymovies2283

6 күн бұрын

​@@petertodorov9540yes we do look at your titles and descandands .even your Symbols are Turkic

@debnadaebna9981

3 күн бұрын

@@alexandrutita4850 No Bulgarians were never Turks. Bulgarians are old Europeans of course. Turks did not exist in that time. Funny Turkish trolls 😂