Medieval Kingdoms Total War Research Thread

**Danishmend** · January 30, 2016, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Kjertesvein

What are you talking about?

~Wille

Last two pages, especially Volga Bulgars being depicted as "Slavic Bulgarians".

Originally Posted by jan_boruta

Not enough talk of Turkic supremacy, judging from his other posts.

Can you please quote a single post of mine where I talk about "Turkic supremacy", or are you always sneaky and slanderous like that? Shouldn't be hard to find since I have only 32 posts. There are too many "supremacists" here, that's for sure, but I'm definitely not one of them.

**FrozenmenSS** · January 30, 2016, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by Caucasian Iberia

Empire of Trebizond:

(Tributary State to Kingdom of Georgia) Interesting fact: Georgian historians called Trebizond Empire : "PONTUS".
King: Alexios I of Trebizond - age: 30 (Created Trebizond Empire in 1204 by the help of his aunt Queen Tamar)
Prince: David Komnenos - Brother of Alexios. Komnenos dynasty. Died in 1212
Prince: John I of Trebizond - Son of Alexios I Age: Unknown
Prince Manuel I of Trebizond - Son of Alexios
princess: Name unknown - daughter of Alexios I, age: Unknown

The Empire of Trebizond was vassal to the Latin empire in 1212 both Trebizond waged war with the Latins vs Nicaea in Asia Minor But in 1214 Peace was signed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...mphaeum_(1214)

Second:in the Siege of Sinope in 1214 it was writen that Alexios I of Trebizond had sons who became Adults
Prince: John I of Trebizond - Son of Alexios - age probably 14-18
Prince Manuel I of Trebizond - Son of Alexios - age probably 14-18

David Komnenos died in 1212/3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komnen...I_of_Trebizond

**+Marius+** · January 30, 2016, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Danishmend

Last two pages, especially Volga Bulgars being depicted as "Slavic Bulgarians".

That is because you are thinking exclusively purely because of the supposed Turkic sound of the very name "Bulgar".

However, the reality is that the Volga Bulgars were drowned into the genetic pool of Ugro-Finns within a few generations and that the same happened with the Slavic Bulgars.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ian_people.png

Reconstructions from warrior burial sites;

Volga Bulgar;

http://i.imgur.com/j2UVVNS.jpg

Medieval Bulgaria;

http://i.imgur.com/lJ9gEn5.jpg

In fact, their very Turkic origin is not an actual accepted fact but merely a theory, a theory with many holes.

For instance, one of the most popular names of Bulgar males in the middle ages was Asparukh, an Iranic name without any Turkic relations whatsoever.

...which was also, not surprisingly, the name of the first Bulgarian Emperor;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asparukh_of_Bulgaria

As you can see, just as plenty of other Slavic origin theories, it is not so simple.

**FrozenmenSS** · January 30, 2016, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by +Marius+

That is because you are thinking exclusively purely because of the supposed Turkic sound of the very name "Bulgar".

However, the reality is that the Volga Bulgars were drowned into the genetic pool of Ugro-Finns within a few generations and that the same happened with the Slavic Bulgars.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ian_people.png

Reconstructions from warrior burial sites;

Volga Bulgar;

http://i.imgur.com/j2UVVNS.jpg

Medieval Bulgaria;

http://i.imgur.com/lJ9gEn5.jpg

In fact, their very Turkic origin is not an actual accepted fact but merely a theory, a theory with many holes.

For instance, one of the most popular names of Bulgar males in the middle ages was Asparukh, an Iranic name without any Turkic relations whatsoever.

...which was also, not surprisingly, the name of the first Bulgarian Emperor;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asparukh_of_Bulgaria

As you can see, just as plenty of other Slavic origin theories, it is not so simple.

The Bulgarians both on the Volga and in the Balkans weren't drowned into the slavic or Volga Finnic seas.The Bulgarians in the balkans today their closest relatives as DNA research are the people of northern Greece Romania and eastern Serbia. Outside of Europe are the people in modern Afghanistan.The slavic ans scytian genes as persentige were around 12-15% each, Thracian 6% and pre agriculture hunter-gatheres also 6%.

Now in Volga Bulgaria in the 13th century it was the same but the Ugrian DNA is somewhat 20%.After the fall of Volga Bulgaria from the Mongols the population was around 75% less from before the invasions from Asia.All put to the sword.After this the language and the DNA became with Turkic mix.

Also the Gagauz people in the latest theory coming from them is that they are Volga Bulgarians who after foll of Volga Bulgaria migrated in the early 14th century in The Bulgarian lands in Moldova and Besarabia in the Rule of Tzar Theodore Svetoslav.They already were for 500 years Muslims when the Ottomans came into the Moldova area.

**Caucasian Iberia** · January 30, 2016, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS

The Empire of Trebizond was vassal to the Latin empire in 1212 both Trebizond waged war with the Latins vs Nicaea in Asia Minor But in 1214 Peace was signed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...mphaeum_(1214)

Second:in the Siege of Sinope in 1214 it was writen that Alexios I of Trebizond had sons who became Adults
Prince: John I of Trebizond - Son of Alexios - age probably 14-18
Prince Manuel I of Trebizond - Son of Alexios - age probably 14-18

David Komnenos died in 1212/3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komnen...I_of_Trebizond

Dont get it rude. I really dont want to insult anyone. But it is nonsense, you are wrong.
I study caucasus and Middle yeast history, cultures, ethnology and religion.
Alexios I was son of Rusudan (sister of Tamar) his father and grandfather died in Constantiople rebelion and Rusudan took Alexios and David to her sister and both brothers rise in Didube palace in Tbilisi.
Tamar conquered those cities including sinope and the siege of sinope in 1212 was done by Seljuks (Town was Trebizondian already).
Trebizond was created by Georgia to make buffer zone from Seljuks and was tributary state of Georgia until 1235 when Mongols arrived. Trebizond had few wars with Seljuks and Latins.
Here is some sources you can read about Trebizond:
William Miller: The last Greek empire of Byzantine era.
Hewsen Robert H.: The province of Trebizond.
Ivane Javakhishvili: History of Georgian Nation.

there is lots of reliable sources and wikipedia who claim what i said to you. Where you find Trebizond as tributary of Nicaea?

**Caucasian Iberia** · January 30, 2016, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS

The Empire of Trebizond was vassal to the Latin empire in 1212 both Trebizond waged war with the Latins vs Nicaea in Asia Minor But in 1214 Peace was signed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...mphaeum_(1214)

Second:in the Siege of Sinope in 1214 it was writen that Alexios I of Trebizond had sons who became Adults
Prince: John I of Trebizond - Son of Alexios - age probably 14-18
Prince Manuel I of Trebizond - Son of Alexios - age probably 14-18

David Komnenos died in 1212/3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komnen...I_of_Trebizond

Dont get it rude. I really dont want to insult anyone. But it is nonsense, you are wrong.
I study caucasus and Middle yeast history, cultures, ethnology and religion.
Alexios I was son of Rusudan (sister of Tamar) his father and grandfather died in Constantiople rebelion and Rusudan took Alexios and David to her sister and both brothers rise in Didube palace in Tbilisi.
Tamar conquered those cities including sinope and the siege of sinope in 1212 was done by Seljuks (Town was Trebizondian already).
Trebizond was created by Georgia to make buffer zone from Seljuks and was tributary state of Georgia until 1235 when Mongols arrived. Trebizond had few wars with Seljuks and Latins.
Here is some sources you can read about Trebizond:
William Miller: The last Greek empire of Byzantine era.
Hewsen Robert H.: The province of Trebizond.
Ivane Javakhishvili: History of Georgian Nation.

there is lots of reliable sources and wikipedia who claim what i said to you. Where you find Trebizond as tributary of Latin Empire?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexios_I_of_Trebizond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Trebizond

**FrozenmenSS** · January 30, 2016, 03:49 PM

@Caucasian Iberia - here are my sources - so make your mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Komnenos

For their assistance, David rewarded the Latin Empire with shiploads of corn and hams.Then, considering how Laskaris had encouraged Sultan Kay Khusrau I to besiege Trebizond in 1205 or 1206, David petitioned the Latin Emperor to include him as his subject in his treaties and correspondence with Laskaris, and to treat his land as Latin territory. In the words of William Miller, "It was his interest to prefer a nominal Latin suzerainty to annexation by the Nicaean emperor.
William Miller, Trebizond: The last Greek Empire of the Byzantine Era: 1204-1461, 1926 (Chicago: Agronaut, 1969), p. 17

Vassiliev commented that the lack of reference to David Komnenos in the Treaty of Nymphaeum (1214) was evidence that his former suzerain had no further use for him and abandoned him in order to gain a peace with Theodore.
A. A. Vasiliev, "The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond (1204-1222)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2846872

More recently the truth of his fate was rediscovered: a marginal note written at Mount Athos records David Komnenos died as a monk of Vatopedi monastery on 13 December 1212.

So from 1205/6 to 1212/3 Trebizond was vassal(client state) of the Latins not to Georgia.But this doesnt make Trebizond not to have trade and non aggression pact to simulate this with Georgia.

Georgia already got 3 vassals and in save position and no major enemies to the west and north,but the Latin Empire is fighting on 3 Fronts - Bulgaria,Epirus and Nicaea in 1212ad.1 Ally/vassal/client state will help the Latins and Trebizond to negate the rush of the 5 regioned Sultanate of Rum and the wars vs Bulgaria,Epirus and Nicaea.

**Caucasian Iberia** · January 31, 2016, 01:39 AM

i am sorry but David Komnenos never was a king of Trebizond. Alexios I was king of Trebizond. He was great person and respectable commander made few successful campaign to west against turks and Nicaea in help of Latins due to his close relations to latin emperor. BUT he was not a King, Ruler of Trebizond Empire was Alexios I.
William Miller, Trebizond: The last Greek Empire of the Byzantine Era: 1204-1461, 1926 (Chicago: Agronaut, 1969), p. 17 ---> continue reading this book not stop on 17th page.
also read this: The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, VOL1, NY-Oxford 1991, p63
Toumanoff: "on the relationship between the founder of the Empire of Trebizond and Georgian Queen Tamat" Speculum 15, 1940, p 299-312
Kuršanskis, «Trébizonde et la Géorgie», p. 238 - here is link on the page ---> http://www.persee.fr/doc/rebyz_0766-..._num_35_1_2073

Tamar made Trebizond Empire by invadind in Former Byzantine territory, She made her nephew to Rule the kingdom, significant part of Population was Georgians, most of the populations was Greek. and you think that if David was Vassal to latin empire so was Alexios I or whole trebizond, when there was much more powerful Kingdom over there borders who created that kingdom?

**Danishmend** · February 01, 2016, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by +Marius+

That is because you are thinking exclusively purely because of the supposed Turkic sound of the very name "Bulgar".

However, the reality is that the Volga Bulgars were drowned into the genetic pool of Ugro-Finns within a few generations and that the same happened with the Slavic Bulgars.

I'm not basing my opinion solely on the way that word sounds. The language they spoke was Oghur Turkic (just like modern Chuvash). They called their God "tangra/tengri", their leaders "Khan". Most scholars have no doubt that their langauge was Oghur Turkic, it is mostly modern Bulgarian historians who try to establish a link between the Bulgars and Afghanistan/Balkh for obvious reasons. It was also stated by Persian medieval geographer Estakhri that the language of the Bulgars resembled the langauge of the Khazars, who were another Turkic people. The Bulgars of Balkan peninsula might have became anything later, that's irrelevant.

The Volga Bulgars adopted the dialect of Cumans (Kipchak Turkic) and gave rise to modern Kazan Tatar people (together with Cuman tribes) during the Golden Horde reign.

**FrozenmenSS** · February 01, 2016, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Danishmend

I'm not basing my opinion solely on the way that word sounds. The language they spoke was Oghur Turkic (just like modern Chuvash). They called their God "tangra/tengri", their leaders "Khan". Most scholars have no doubt that their langauge was Oghur Turkic, it is mostly modern Bulgarian historians who try to establish a link between the Bulgars and Afghanistan/Balkh for obvious reasons. It was also stated by Persian medieval geographer Estakhri that the language of the Bulgars resembled the langauge of the Khazars, who were another Turkic people. The Bulgars of Balkan peninsula might have became anything later, that's irrelevant.

The Volga Bulgars adopted the dialect of Cumans (Kipchak Turkic) and gave rise to modern Kazan Tatar people (together with Cuman tribes) during the Golden Horde reign.

Stop with the Turkic propaganda that is totally outdated in the 21th century. The Turkic element in both Bulgarians on the Volga and the Danube had hardly any Turkic elements at all. The Volga Bulgarians got today their Turkic language from the Mongol and Tatar invasions in the 30s of the 13th century when 75% or maybe more the Volga Bulgarians were killed.After that they were Highly influenced by their Dominating Turkic masters for 200 or more years. As I told you in the Bulgarian faction thread - Until the 13th century The Bulgarians had as % Turkic DNA as much as the Bulgarians and Germans Today in both the Danube and the Volga back then.The Thracian DNA in the Danube Bulgarians today and back then is even more than the Turkic one.(the Ottoman Turkic is even less in all balkan nations,But the Modern Turks got for the last 600 or more years more have taken some part of the Balkan and pre islam Asian minor's nations their DNA and mix it up with their own.)

And I can tell you the Overhaul in the history of Central Asia in the last 30 years about the Nomads from the 4th and 6th century the Turkic element is lowered to the level that only the nomadic elites was with some Turkic elements.

**FrozenmenSS** · February 01, 2016, 10:57 AM

@Caucasian Iberia the sheer fact that Trebizond was asking for help from the Latins and not from the Georgians speaks for itself.if Georgia was aiding Trebizond with its cue full time we wouldnt have heard about asking for help from the Latins...

It was probably only an initial help from Georgia when creating the Trebizond state as it was common always when there was such a political moves the acting side like georgia wasnt helping full time the political entity that created... It always wanted to do it the most economical way and dont get bogged down in the problems of its newly created puppet/allied state.

Its the same in todays time.Look at Syria today or Communist Afghanistan in 1979.Or Vietnam for the USA. The Russians were forced to help the Syrian army 4,5 years after the start of the Civil war there.They saw that the Syrian state was failing apart and loosing town after town.Why they didn't helped at the beginning in 2011?? Because they didnt wanted to get bogged down in a war that they cant gain any dividends and that war will only drain their Military strength.they were saving time as much as possible before they were forced to join the war in Syria guard their interests in the region.

After the fall of Sinope in 1214 this was probably the moment when Georgia started acting in defense of Trebizond from the Sultanate of Rum.

We know exactly when they became vassals and when they were abandoned from the Latins against their foes.Also the ruler and the second man in the state were 2 brothers.In this Medieval Period - the 13th century it was common brothers to rule their country jointly as co-rulers and having 1 unified strategy ,but it was always 1 over the other nominally.One of them(it wasnt always the elder one who was the ruler,but who was the more abled for the exact job)was the military commander and the other more of the diplomat and working on the internal politics developing the country.There were even cases of not 2 ,but 3 brothers,sometimes switching their political posts. In this Case it was Alexios the ruler and David as the man on the ground leading the armies.

So from 1205/6 to 1212/3 Trebizond was vassal(client state) of the Latins not to Georgia.But this doesnt make Trebizond not to have trade and non aggression pact to simulate the close relationships with Georgia.

**Danishmend** · February 01, 2016, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS

Stop with the Turkic propaganda that is totally outdated in the 21th century.

That's not "Turkic propaganda", and definitely not outdated or something. Most scholars today (except for Bulgarian ones of course) agree that their langauge was Oghur Turkic. I'm not here to convince you anyway, I was just astonished by the dose of pseudo-historical propaganda in this thread and shared my opinion. Guess I shouldn't have, for it was me who ended up being accused of spreading "Turkic propaganda".

**OutsiderKK** · February 01, 2016, 03:58 PM

And yet, you were the one who warned me about that

**Sweik** · February 01, 2016, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Caucasian Iberia

General: Zakharia ("Mxargrdzeli" meaning: Longarmed) Kurdish prince serving Feudal Georgia. age: 55

Kurdish?

**FrozenmenSS** · February 01, 2016, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Danishmend

That's not "Turkic propaganda", and definitely not outdated or something. Most scholars today (except for Bulgarian ones of course) agree that their langauge was Oghur Turkic. I'm not here to convince you anyway, I was just astonished by the dose of pseudo-historical propaganda in this thread and shared my opinion. Guess I shouldn't have, for it was me who ended up being accused of spreading "Turkic propaganda".

Hey smart guy - until you start saying something meaningful as more from academia world Noone will take you seriously.Period. The ''Most scholars" from the Communist era talked that some 15 000 legged horsemen with small horses formed the 3rd most powerful empire in Medieval Europe after the Franks and the Romans. Nowadays its more like 2-3 million. And Genetics dont Lie... Thats why i love science - it doest got ego.But surely you do have some...

Old post of mine in TWC.

Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS

Second Video.

My observations on most of the supporters of the East Iranic theory , it seems no one has mentioned the Iranic theory is actually split in two camps - Eastern/Bactrian and Western/Sarmatian), as well as the non-academic autochtonic (i.e. Thracian) theories, also makes me think that their motivations for supporting these theories mostly lie on non-objective reasons. However, - I'd say the main drive is to distance ourselves from the idea of the Bulgars being Turkic as a nation as a hole. Now, the reasons for that are several. The most obvious one is that due to the five centuries of Ottoman yoke, in Bulgaria we generally don't have a particularly positive image of the Turks, which most of us see as our "more recent archenemy" (the older, medieval and now outdated one being, of course, Byzantium). Although I'd say that the view on the Bulgarian Turks and Pomaks (Bulgarian Muslims) in particular is at least mixed at worst (not counting nationalist extremists), as I personally also have an image of the Bulgarian Turks as relatively poor (i.e. on our own level), somewhat conservative and extremely hard-working, honest people. Then again, maybe it's just me...

Anyway, back to the point - besides the general anti-Turkicness most of us have grown up in Bulgaria with, another factor for distancing ourselves from the old Turkic theory is that the latter was artificially enforced as an actual dogma in our historiography during the communist regime. And now when that regime is gone, the dam is broken and all the pent-up "liberty" and ideas are pouring out, as far away from the old postulates as possible. Before an argument for that, I would first have to explain that, at least according to the common view, including of some of our historians, the reason why our communist authorities wanted to stress so much on the supposed Turkic origin of the Bulgars was itself "racist", as someone from the modern West would say. Namely, the idea was to portray the Bulgars as relatively primitive, but highly warlike "bow-legged Mongoloid savages", who conquered, but were then quickly assimilated by the more sophisticated and superior sea of Slavic tribes, thus underlining our Slavic nature and our natural brotherhood with "Mother Russia"*. Respectively, often the same more-nationalist circles which tend to go for those non-Turkic theories, at least according to my observations, have also started to deny the Slavic nature of modern Bulgarians** or even the existence of Slavs as a whole. So I think this comes to show that an even bigger factor for this tendency is simply the liberation from and revulsion of the old communist propaganda. Of course, that's certainly not the only factor in the psychological picture of this drive, just a big one.

[*If you haven't seen it, I recommend watching our 1981 movie trilogy "Khan Asparuh", available with English subs on YouTube (apparently, currently as private videos, so you're left with the much worse short dubbed version of Warner Bros) or torrents (seeder available, even if it shows otherwise), which is both interesting and epic on one hand (50 000 real people from the Bulgarian People's Army "playing" the Byzantine army in the third movie) and is often nowadays blamed for being full of the aforementioned communist historical propaganda (though, to be fair, the Slavs, while mentioned as numerous, weren't really portrayed as all that more advanced or special)]
[**This reminds me, btw, of one extraordinarily ironic "scientific" expedition to Afghanistan from several years ago, called the "Tangra expedition" (i.e. irony №1 - Iranic-theory-expedition under the name of the supposed Bulgar version of the Turkic Sky-God Bir Tengri), and a newspaper's title about it, which went like this: "DNA proved we're not Slavs, we come from Pamir, claims Dr. Slavyan Stoilov" - it makes me chuckle even today.]

Now, as for my personal opinion on the origin of the Bulgars - as I was very recently discussing the same issue with other people in Total war center , my opinion is that we can relatively certainly trace the Bulgar thread as far back as their time and place in the 4th c. Caucasian-Pontic region. Before that, if there were any people who brought their Bulgar name from somewhere else (i.e. if that name wasn't adopted in the Caucasian region in the first place), their traces are too uncertain at this point. As far as I've been reading on this subject, definitely the absolutely messiest and most fiercely debated one in the whole Bulgarian history, I can safely say that every single person, professional historian or not, who's done some research on the matter, has his specific opinion about it, different from all the rest. Respectively, the proposed origins and homelands vary as wildly as the human imagination can allow - from them being Thracian colonists returning home from the East all the way to them being Koreans (ok, that isn't even serious, except for a few people, maybe), and everything in-between. Respectively, this is true not only among the laymen, like me, but also among the historians - some use sources A and claim they're from the Hindu Kush, others use sources B and claim they're from the Dinglins north of China, thirds go on about Oghurs and Huns, fourths about Balkharans, fifths about Tocharians, sixths about Sarmatians and so on and so forth. Too many Bulgars. It's really tiresome.

http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html

Rasho Rashev, arguably our best and most qualified archaeologist on the early Bulgar subject. Rashev actually doesn't support the East Iranic/Bactrian theory, but the West Iranic/Sarmatian one. I myself, very much agree with Rashev's opinion, which is very basically this - the Bulgars in their Caucasian period (Kubrat's Old Great Bulgaria in particular) were a tribal confederation of various tribes of different ethnic stock, most notably led by a Turkic/Hunnic aristocracy, while the majority of the other tribes were of a Sarmatian stock and possibly a few were Ugric. The arguments in favour of a Sarmatian origin of the majority of the Bulgars at this stage (and of the Danubian Bulgars later on) are indeed many, in my opinion, but I'll just mention that it was incorrect in listing Asparukh(the Father of Khan Tervel who leads the Danube Bulgaria in the Second siege of Contantinopol in 717-8) as a clearly Turkic name, when even in the times of the aforementioned communist Turkic dogma, Ivan Beshevliev (naturally a supporter of the Turkic theory http://www.kroraina.com/fadlan/besh.html ) in his 1967 study "Iranic elements in the Proto-Bulgarians" (sorry, available in Bulgarian only) clearly demonstrates that it, along with the majority of the names of the other Bulgarian rulers, are Iranic in origin, with a part of the rest being clearly Turkic, a few potentially Ugric and a part - uncertain, either Iranic or Turkic (in the same article he also argues, btw, that the Bulgar runes are "indivisible" from the Sarmatian ones).

And if you're interested, in this site:
http://www.kroraina.com/index.php?a=sr&fr=ct&id=2011

you can find a few studies in English on the matter, showing several of the many theories for the origin of the Bulgars. A quick short guide - Petar Dobrev is the founder and leader of the East Iranic/Bactrian theory (although others have admittedly improved upon him, as Dobrev's arguments are mainly "linguistic", which is not really his specialty, i.e. economic history), while Gancho Cenov (alternatively, Gantscho Tzenoff, as he was known in Germany) was an early 20th century historian, founder and, thankfully, at least no longer leader of the autochtonist movement, whose claims and argumentation are exceptionally weak even by autochtonist standards (which says quite a bit; also, he whines a lot about how our more serious historians, like Zlatarski, have shunned him away).

Ethnological traits of the ancient Iranian culture in modern-day Bulgarian culture
http://samoistina.com/2/similarities.htm

Scholars Claim Bulgarians Descended from Iran
http://www.novinite.com/articles/117...nded+from+Iran

On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html

The Origins of Bulgaria: Myths and Facts
https://blazingbulgaria.wordpress.co...s_of_bulgaria/

Where did the Bulgarians came from, explains Bulgarian scientist's expedition to the lands of Bactria
http://samoistina.com/2/wheredidwecamefrom.htm

Bulgarian Expedition Travels to Iran in Search of Roots
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117192

The Origins of the Bulgars
https://www.csc.kth.se/~dilian/bulgars.pdf

Bulgarians Are Purely Indo-European, Not Turkic - Gene Study
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=131894

Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0056779

Inscriptions and Alphabet of the Proto-Bulgarians, by Peter Dobrev
http://groznijat.tripod.com/pb_lang/

Another site for more info
http://protobulgarians.com/English%2...%20version.htm

**FrozenmenSS** · February 01, 2016, 04:54 PM

**FrozenmenSS** · February 01, 2016, 04:55 PM

Genetic data from archaeological remains of the ancient population of the Balkans and its proximity to the Bulgarians. The second report presented by Professor Dr. Y. Y. Shopov scientific seminar on ancient civilizations of December 15, 2015 at the Sofia University "St. Kl. Ohridski"

And I dont care if you dont know bulgarian to learn what the academics in the video talk about,Dear Danishmend.

**finix** · February 01, 2016, 05:06 PM

FrozenmenSS stop with that please.

And I want too to convince people, that long time no one has studied originate from where the Bulgarians. The truth is that no one except the Bulgarians does not care where we comes from, and for years has been written the same thing. You can not convince people of something they do not want to be convinced.

This went on for too long. So I please all sides in the dispute to stop here

**Kjertesvein** · February 24, 2016, 02:38 AM