@jonathan4055 Have you ever tried to set such thick beams on fire, while the people inside just cramp out bucket after bucket of water? You certainly can't just light a match and "poof, no more wood". And the Romans hadn't brought any Greek fire or siege equipment either, considering they weren't expecting any fortification in the first place. ;)
If you consider that the Turks have had big influence in regions of todays Bulgaria, Romania etc. we can maybe say that he really was called Khan? I dont know this guy so much so i better shut up.
@VictumRoManius The Turks did have a big influence in the areas of modern Bulgaria and Romania, but that's nearly a milennium after the events this film portrays. The old Gok-Turks also had an influence on Great Old Bulgaria (ruled by Asparukh's father, Kubrat, who created his state after chasing away the Gok-Turk and Avar forces in modern Ukraine), but whether or not Asparukh used the title "khan" cannot be answered positively.
@NikeBG , i don't know about the Turk influence in Romania but definetely there is Cuman and Magyar influence. These people were assimilated into the future Romanian people and we can see it also into the genetical markers of the Romanian people. Anyway overall, both Bulgarian and Romanian people are extremely close genetically.
@gogoasacenusie In that comment I meant mostly a "cultural influence" of the (Ottoman) Turks over the lands of Bulgaria and Romania. Otherwise, there's an absolutely minimal genetic Turkish influence even on the Turks themselves - most of them are genetically of Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian etc. descent, original Turkic genetics are only a small part, found only in Asia Minor. It's the culture that makes them Turkish and which has had a lesser influence here as well. ;)
Филмова трилогия, възкресяваща събития, предхождащи и съпътстващи създаването на българската държава в средата на 7- век. Волжска България се огъва под набезите на хазарите. Следвайки завета на своя баща, синовете на Хан Кубрат, след смъртта му повеждат племената в търсене на нова родина. Най - младият от тях - Аспарух, след двадесетгодишно странстване, търсейки “земя завинаги” за своя народ, достига до устието на река Дунав.
@fuckinusernameaccoun Само да отбележа, че не Волжка България, а Стара Велика България се огъва под набезите на хазарите. Волжка България се появява по-късно.
this is a movie based on historical sources at that time when we bulgarians established our kingdom and 1300 years later we're still here :D We are one of the oldest nations in Europe.
@KubernetePirata Because we don't know what title he actually used (whether it's the "kanasubigi" from later times or some other) and 20th century historians just thought it easier to call him "khan", simply because they thought he's Turkic (both of these theses are under serious reconsideration today).
@KubernetePirata Actually historians think that we Bulgarians are Asian tribes that came here with the Huns and that we were a part of their horde, when they were in war against the Romans, but after their defeat we went East and created Great Bulgaria, later conquered by other tribes. Few that remained left the country and created the first Bulgarian kingdom (i don't actually know why they call it first)
Cant help thinking Julius Caesar would have came up with a lot more creative plan than the leader of this Eastern Roman army did. Somehow the tactic of "charge, leap into the ditch and struggle up the hill against murderous barrages of arrows" doesnt seem to be too well though out in this instance. But hey...maybe I am just being cynical.
@16Canadian Besides Bulgarian ones - no. Otherwise, for the Bulgarian ones, besides this one - "Deniat na vladetelite" (The Day of the Rulers, about Khan Krum, early 9th c.), "Zlatniat vek" (The Golden Age, about Tsar Simeon the Great, early 10th c.), "Svatbite na Ioan Asen" (The Weddings of Ioan Asen, about Ioan Asen II, early-middle 13th c.), "Ivailo" (about Tsar Ivailo, late 13th c.) etc, though they're all only on Bulgarian (no foreigns subs or dubs) and, naturally, are more about Bulgaria.
The serial ran on Czechoslovak TV in mid 80's - and I was very impressed by it. The acting is fine, and the money invested into this spectacle are clearly visible. However, today I would have certain reservations to the "music" that accompanies the movie. It is simply weak and dull, and the scenes lack enough appeal to the audience.
@NikeBG Nothing suggests that Bulgars would be of Turkic origin. They spoke a Turkic language, but their cranial features were clearly Caucasoid. Furthermore, no trace of Turkic admixture in modern Bulgarians and Chuvash can be found. To sum it up, Bulgarians were simply Turkicized Sarmatians.
the Bulgarian are melted then with the population that he lived in that places that I think they were very similar to the Greek, as has happened in west between Germans and Latin.
Asiatic, Turkic, iranian, altaic Burlgarians were very different in comparison with present bulgarians. different language, different belief system...so stop being proud about what ur not. They were able to build an empire because they were great! look at them now, they are banch of weaklings. same with turks. same with mognols, same with most altaic pples. they are just lost their purity and strnegnth.
What purity are we talking about, considering the steppes were one giant melting pot, which is one of the biggest reasons exactly for the power of its people?
The horse archer, the mounted combat system and the willingness of all men to fight were the reasons for the success of the steppe peoples in war. Not some political correct fantasy that the more inhomogeneous a people become the better and more united they become.
Which is true partially thanks to the cultural unity/similarity of the steppe tribes in general and the cultural transfer between the steppe tribes and their neighbouring settled civilizations. The mounted warfare and the willingness for battle and plunder being part of the other, even greater source of strength - the style of living of the steppe people itself.
Bulgarians are not from Turkic or iranian origing :) mate look at the cloth on them the fur ..it tells you difrend :) They come from Central Asia ..not 100% so meny sources but most of them will tell you that ;)
There are no special video effects! All these people are actually there. Most of them are soldiers from the Bulgarian Army. There are also many volunteers. At some scenes 45 000 men can be seen! Great movie at the time!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
omg this is stupid, first off why didnt the defenders fill the moat up? second why didnt the attackers use fricken fire against the forst, its made out of wood! and who the fuck jumps into a pit??? both of these facions suck compared to the roman republic
The battle and the war were won by the Bulgars. But in the end, I guess, nobody won - both nations were eventually conquered twice, only Bulgaria exists today, but it's quite different from Asparuh's Bulgaria, so the only winners are Time and Change.
idiots these are NOT mongols these are BULGARIANS as pokermaniac0978 said! The bulgarian nation is very old and has a lot of amazing history , filled with battles with the byzantine empire of wich almost all victories, too bad this movie is so damn old , they gotta make a new one with some good director,visual effects etc. coz there is really a lot to show about the Bulgaria, it's like 1100 years older than the USA ..
Calm down, they're not talking about the movie, but about a purely hypothetical fight between the early Romans and the late Mongols. Just like people wonder who will win in a fight of f.e. viking vs. samurai or Levski vs. CSKA.
well its hard to say the mongols were a hardy people ,they conquered whole of china which is no easy task.The mongol empire was one of the biggest of its time and theyre warriors were fearless indeed.But the eastern romans have discipline and christianity at theyre side.Its quite hard to guess
anyway it dependeds if the roman dictated the battle feild so that is was not open and the mogals can not use their cavalry to full effect and it comes down to an archery dule witch the byzantine/romans were masters of aswell
Are you stupid? The phalanx was one of the Roman's main formations, though it was more mobile than the Greek version. Even if it came down to an archery battle, the Mongols would still win with their increased mobility, evven if they couldn't fully use it.
Mongols. Unless the Romans managed to forge a mighty force of cavalry. The Mongols would pelt the Roman infantry with their arrows. The Romans may form a testudo but they'd sit there for hours as the Mongols circled them. Kind of a stalemate...
depends on the time. During the earlie empire the romans had a cavalry and later on they also had allot of seige weapons and machines that would cut a army of horses down very fast. The first machine gun was invented with in the empire. Only real reason Rome collapse is Greed, lack of discipline and Religion divideing the nations apart..
Most of them were soldiers from the Bulgarian army at the time. And instead of marching around in modern uniforms, they went marching around in medieval ones for some time. ;)
Which is only somewhat true for the Third Bulgarian Tsardom (as well as never losing a battle-flag then). Otherwise, we've lost a fair ammount of battles in the First and Second ones.
storicamente è noto che bisanzio arrulasse tutto tranne che soldati locali, tranne per la fanteria leggera, e per gli stratioti, che in ogni caso spesso erano stranieri anche loro a cui era stata assegnata della terra...
Oh, I wouldn't say the stratiotes were only foreigners, but many of them were also simple Byzantine peasants, AFAIK. And many of the so-called "foreigners" were rather quickly assimilated into the Byzantine culture anyway... ;)
im proud too have the romans as my ancestors love too romania and italy brothers and have history together and peace too al other latin countries and peace too the whole earth.
Look at 'em all swarmin' round the castle. Droppin' 'emselves into the moat with them ladders and such. No wonder the Roman Empire went and fell, no need for Gibbon to explain it.
This is the Byzantine Empire. The Greek speaking eastern half of the old Roman Empire. Byzantium was never the world conquering superpower of the western Empire. Judging from the video this must be post-Constantine so by now the civil and religious culture of what we call the Roman Empire was long gone replaced by the prototype for medieval divine right monarchy in the east.
Indeed. So the problem is not what is Bysantium, but what WE call to be "the Roman Empire" - when thinking about the Roman Empire most people think only about the Paganistic Imperial period (and eventually the Republic), but forget that in the "end" Rome became Christian and its culture gradually changed to what would be continued by "Bysantium".
I think it's pretty commonly realized that the introduction of Christianity and it becoming the state religion of the Empire coincided with it's decline.
The Empire evolved and change but never the less it remains the Roman empire unlike the Holy Roman empire or the empire of the francs.The video depicts the battle of the Ongala during the reighn of Constantine IV.
I don't know for games, but I most seriously doubt any Persian soldier would wear the labarum on his shield. And the armour looks pretty accurate, except for the large "iron" shields...
Shashaveli,mladi mi priqtelu,ne sam pijan,ne se sheguvam,a dali sam idiot neznam,no taka pishe v debelite knigi.Rimskata imperia se e kazvala Romania,a vsichki neini grajdani sa bili romei.Balgarite sme bili romei za 168 godini.
Nope, he's actually correct. Of course, it's usually read with a straigh "o", unlike the modern country of Ro(u)mania. But otherwise in the Middle Ages the name Romania was often used either for Thrace, the region of Constantinople or the whole country.
Bulgars could be counted from the Turk-Althaian ethno-linguictic group.(It may sound very difficult but it is easy:Turk-Althaian means the name of the group and ethno-linguistic means having similar way of living & language.)So,as the Bulgars lived somewhere in central Asia the migration of the huns and other barbarian tribes made them migrate too.From then on they divided into 3 groups-
Byzantines to be correct. But the Byzantine empire IS the sole surviving part of the Roman empire and called itself so. Byzantium is the name given by science to distinguish both.
Exactly! Byzantium is a relatively modern term, created by historians and never used by the real "Byzantines", who called themselves Romans and were the only direct descendants of the old Roman Empire.
Yes, it's called being a historian, not a laic. If you prefer to be the latter, I prefer to be the first.
Kanasubigi is not Turkic, as it isn't proven as such. It's only one theory, while there are many other theories about its meaning, quite more plausible by that. Same is valid for the meaning of "Bulgar".
Using the Orkhon script doesn't make someone Turkic - most Bulgar inscriptions are on Greek, so if using an alphabet designates automatically your ethnos, then the Bulgars would be Greek, wouldn't they? Think a little before claiming nonsenses!
P.S. Asparukh is most definitely not Turkish, but a proven Persian name. Bad example of yours...
Khan might be Turkic, but the Bulgar rulers never called themselves "khan". Only three of them used the title "kanasubigi", which they put BEFORE their name (i.e. kanasubigi Malamir), unlike the Turkic syntax, which puts the "khan" AFTER the name (as in Genghis Khan). Which shows that even if the Bulgars used the title khan (which is not proven, but merely suggested), it was just a loan-word from a process of Turkicization, while the syntaxis basis itself was non-Turkic.
For the rest you seem either not to understand or not to WANT to understand. But I don't blame you - it appears you're on a pre-determined path to turn all the historical nations in Asia into Turkic, be they such or not, with all means necessary.
What you "send" is neither agreed by "all historians" (which is practically impossible anyway), nor it is a "general truth" (especially considering it holds no sense as of yet). Perhaps I should recommend you to think and paraphrase what you want to say, as it is currently rather illogical and unclear.
Well, you didn't say anything, except posting three links with little to no meaning, so there's nothing I should re-read for now. As for the Russian scholars - I'll check them out, but only because they're "famous" doesn't make them automatically correct. And if they suggest a history of 17 000 years of ANY ethnos, that means they're 99.99% definitely incorrect.
Oh, really? Come on, show it to me and to the whole world! Wonder why it hasn't been shown before (or perhaps somebody needed time to finish it, huh?)...
The first one you sent me is of what appears to be an Egyptian papyrus and is most definitely not on any Turkic or Bulgar runic script.
The second link is about Cuman prayers, which has little to do with the Bulgars (Cumans mixed with the Bulgarians in the XIIIc).
The third link is about the Chuvash, who are only considered to be eventually the closest to the remains of what might have been the Bulgar language, if it was a Turkic one.
If I was you and wanted to emphasize the Turkic influence on the Bulgars (which most certainly exists), I'd outline the three inventorial inscriptions, which show that at least the military elite has used at least some Turkic military terms, plus the fact that, as Zacharius Rhetor writes, some Bulgars lived in cities, but some Bulgars also lived in tents and the latter might have been exactly nomadic Turkic people.
Yes, as well as there's still the town of Kumanovo in modern Macedonia. ;) However, that has little to do with the Bulgars - those dynasties are from the Second Bulgarian Empire and Bulgarian is not the same as Bulgar.
Bulgars did not loose their identity. That is why the country is still called Bulgaria - not Slavia or something similiar. Bulgars were not a small tribe (old Propaganda, but were many. Bulgarians do not look like Slavic people. Slavic came down to Balkans from the north - tall, blonds with blue eyes.
Yes, and they came from Mars, right? Or from the Sun? Please, be serious! To speculate with linguistics and some of the numerous theories to fit to your favour - ok. But claiming that some ethnos has 17 000 years of history is absolutely ridiculous! Not to mention that the Turkic ethnos itself appeared as such long after the appearance of the Bulgars (in the so-called Dark Ages, not 50 000 BC).
They might be wrong, they might not. However, the above interpretation is most definitely wrong and any person with some sense of logic and at least a bit of common historical knowledge can see it.
Besides, I'm not saying that bulga or Bulgar is from or not from Turkic origin. I'm saying that it is merely one of the many theories and it's sustaining many critics and is now losing ground from the modern researches.
the Bulgar language, now extinct, is a distant branch of the Turkic languages, and broadly classified as Bulgar Turkic,
whose only living relative is the Chuvash language.[ It is supported, among other things, by the facts that some Bulgar words contained in the few surviving stone inscriptions, and in other documents (mainly military and hierarchical terms such as tarkan, bagatur, and probably kan and kanartikin "prince") appear to be of Turkic origin,
that the Bulgars apparently used a 12-year cyclic calendar similar to the one adopted by Turkic with names and numbers that are deciphered as Turkic, and that the Bulgars' supreme god was probably called Tangra, a deity widely known among the Turkic peoples[2]. Some also point out the presence of a (fairly small) number of Turkic loanwords in the Slavic Old Bulgarian language, and the fact that the Bulgars used an alphabet similar to the Turkic Orkhon script,
There are absolutely no mentions of Tangra in the Bulgar inscriptions, except one single "...s Taggra..." on a very damaged stone inscription, which early researchers quickly took to be the "theos Tangra", like the Turkic sky-god Tengri, considering the predetermined thesis for the Bulgar's nomadic origin, which now loses more and more ground with the modern free researches.
One of the many, many possible meanings, as well as "sabis hunters", "balkharans" etc. Of course, it's the most convenient for the pan-Turkic supporters, but that doesn't make it correct only because it fits them best.
I never said there is an Iranic 12-years calendar. I said that there is a Chinese one and that the Bulgar calendar (or the little that remains of it) is best translated through the Iranic languages - i.e. that when it's translated through Turkic languages, certain errors in the cycle of the calendar appear.
Yes, there is such a theory. As well as there's even a theory that it's "kanas (kniaz) u bogu" - Slavic form for "ruler from God", the massively used by the Bulgars Greek phrase "ek theo archon". Like nearly all things about the ancient Bulgar's history, there are only theories, none of which is finally proven for now.
the attackers are retards just burn the defensive fort it is in wood
jonathan4055 7 months ago
@jonathan4055 Have you ever tried to set such thick beams on fire, while the people inside just cramp out bucket after bucket of water? You certainly can't just light a match and "poof, no more wood". And the Romans hadn't brought any Greek fire or siege equipment either, considering they weren't expecting any fortification in the first place. ;)
NikeBG 7 months ago 2
Търкаляйте се по насипа ромейски кучета!
ubiozmiec 8 months ago
ancient wars were slaughters ... but very good scene , i see the war .
tonsyidibe 9 months ago 2
If you consider that the Turks have had big influence in regions of todays Bulgaria, Romania etc. we can maybe say that he really was called Khan? I dont know this guy so much so i better shut up.
VictumRoManius 11 months ago
@VictumRoManius The Turks did have a big influence in the areas of modern Bulgaria and Romania, but that's nearly a milennium after the events this film portrays. The old Gok-Turks also had an influence on Great Old Bulgaria (ruled by Asparukh's father, Kubrat, who created his state after chasing away the Gok-Turk and Avar forces in modern Ukraine), but whether or not Asparukh used the title "khan" cannot be answered positively.
NikeBG 11 months ago
@NikeBG , i don't know about the Turk influence in Romania but definetely there is Cuman and Magyar influence. These people were assimilated into the future Romanian people and we can see it also into the genetical markers of the Romanian people. Anyway overall, both Bulgarian and Romanian people are extremely close genetically.
gogoasacenusie 5 months ago
@gogoasacenusie In that comment I meant mostly a "cultural influence" of the (Ottoman) Turks over the lands of Bulgaria and Romania. Otherwise, there's an absolutely minimal genetic Turkish influence even on the Turks themselves - most of them are genetically of Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian etc. descent, original Turkic genetics are only a small part, found only in Asia Minor. It's the culture that makes them Turkish and which has had a lesser influence here as well. ;)
NikeBG 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NikeBG , yes you are correct.
gogoasacenusie 5 months ago
Филмова трилогия, възкресяваща събития, предхождащи и съпътстващи създаването на българската държава в средата на 7- век. Волжска България се огъва под набезите на хазарите. Следвайки завета на своя баща, синовете на Хан Кубрат, след смъртта му повеждат племената в търсене на нова родина. Най - младият от тях - Аспарух, след двадесетгодишно странстване, търсейки “земя завинаги” за своя народ, достига до устието на река Дунав.
fuckinusernameaccoun 1 year ago
@fuckinusernameaccoun Само да отбележа, че не Волжка България, а Стара Велика България се огъва под набезите на хазарите. Волжка България се появява по-късно.
NikeBG 1 year ago
this is a movie based on historical sources at that time when we bulgarians established our kingdom and 1300 years later we're still here :D We are one of the oldest nations in Europe.
christakiev 1 year ago 5
@christakiev Какво кралство бе? Царство ,не кралство!
MattBG67 9 months ago 3
erm...
he's not even Asian, but why does he's called as Khan?
KubernetePirata 1 year ago
@KubernetePirata Because we don't know what title he actually used (whether it's the "kanasubigi" from later times or some other) and 20th century historians just thought it easier to call him "khan", simply because they thought he's Turkic (both of these theses are under serious reconsideration today).
NikeBG 1 year ago
@KubernetePirata Actually historians think that we Bulgarians are Asian tribes that came here with the Huns and that we were a part of their horde, when they were in war against the Romans, but after their defeat we went East and created Great Bulgaria, later conquered by other tribes. Few that remained left the country and created the first Bulgarian kingdom (i don't actually know why they call it first)
Playmesomeshit 9 months ago
Cant help thinking Julius Caesar would have came up with a lot more creative plan than the leader of this Eastern Roman army did. Somehow the tactic of "charge, leap into the ditch and struggle up the hill against murderous barrages of arrows" doesnt seem to be too well though out in this instance. But hey...maybe I am just being cynical.
aeonflux67 1 year ago
@aeonflux67 Not everyone can be like Julius Caesar. Actually, only a very, very few have been close enough. ;)
NikeBG 1 year ago
man i've been looking everywhere for movies featruring the eastern roman/byzantine empire. know of any others???
16Canadian 1 year ago
@16Canadian Besides Bulgarian ones - no. Otherwise, for the Bulgarian ones, besides this one - "Deniat na vladetelite" (The Day of the Rulers, about Khan Krum, early 9th c.), "Zlatniat vek" (The Golden Age, about Tsar Simeon the Great, early 10th c.), "Svatbite na Ioan Asen" (The Weddings of Ioan Asen, about Ioan Asen II, early-middle 13th c.), "Ivailo" (about Tsar Ivailo, late 13th c.) etc, though they're all only on Bulgarian (no foreigns subs or dubs) and, naturally, are more about Bulgaria.
NikeBG 1 year ago
Рубилово :)
vikdon1 1 year ago
The serial ran on Czechoslovak TV in mid 80's - and I was very impressed by it. The acting is fine, and the money invested into this spectacle are clearly visible. However, today I would have certain reservations to the "music" that accompanies the movie. It is simply weak and dull, and the scenes lack enough appeal to the audience.
centrum99 1 year ago
@NikeBG Nothing suggests that Bulgars would be of Turkic origin. They spoke a Turkic language, but their cranial features were clearly Caucasoid. Furthermore, no trace of Turkic admixture in modern Bulgarians and Chuvash can be found. To sum it up, Bulgarians were simply Turkicized Sarmatians.
centrum99 1 year ago
@centrum99 Yes, that's rather probable, IMHO.
NikeBG 1 year ago
where do I get this on dvd ? any links?
SethP666 1 year ago
he's a bulgar?
melbingkoy 1 year ago
@melbingkoy Who is?
NikeBG 1 year ago
its true today we got many special effects on movies but these old war movies r really great having all those extras. thumbs up :)
KnightoftheCross1 1 year ago 4
@KnightoftheCross1 Indeed, such a thing can't be done even with the TW engine! ;)
NikeBG 1 year ago
Velikata Bulgarska Slava i Edin Velik Film. Poklon pred zaginalite !
xxpoonednoobxx 1 year ago 3
the Bulgarian are melted then with the population that he lived in that places that I think they were very similar to the Greek, as has happened in west between Germans and Latin.
normannodelsud 2 years ago
Imperium.
The only way forward to our glorious past.
The way to survival of our Race and Civilisations.
Enough of fratricidal wars.
Enough of cousins killing cousins.
Enough.
Imperium Europa:
The Book that Changed the World.
Amazon Books.
NormanLowell 2 years ago
Asiatic, Turkic, iranian, altaic Burlgarians were very different in comparison with present bulgarians. different language, different belief system...so stop being proud about what ur not. They were able to build an empire because they were great! look at them now, they are banch of weaklings. same with turks. same with mognols, same with most altaic pples. they are just lost their purity and strnegnth.
24erayfikri69 2 years ago
What purity are we talking about, considering the steppes were one giant melting pot, which is one of the biggest reasons exactly for the power of its people?
NikeBG 2 years ago
The horse archer, the mounted combat system and the willingness of all men to fight were the reasons for the success of the steppe peoples in war. Not some political correct fantasy that the more inhomogeneous a people become the better and more united they become.
Finn001abd 2 years ago
Which is true partially thanks to the cultural unity/similarity of the steppe tribes in general and the cultural transfer between the steppe tribes and their neighbouring settled civilizations. The mounted warfare and the willingness for battle and plunder being part of the other, even greater source of strength - the style of living of the steppe people itself.
NikeBG 2 years ago
Bulgarians are not from Turkic or iranian origing :) mate look at the cloth on them the fur ..it tells you difrend :) They come from Central Asia ..not 100% so meny sources but most of them will tell you that ;)
drmaikati 1 year ago
So, since they come from Central Asia and are neither Turkic, nor Iranic, I presume you claim they're Ugrian?
NikeBG 1 year ago
There are no special video effects! All these people are actually there. Most of them are soldiers from the Bulgarian Army. There are also many volunteers. At some scenes 45 000 men can be seen! Great movie at the time!
firedragonv92 2 years ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
omg this is stupid, first off why didnt the defenders fill the moat up? second why didnt the attackers use fricken fire against the forst, its made out of wood! and who the fuck jumps into a pit??? both of these facions suck compared to the roman republic
shadowknighntabc 2 years ago
@shadowknighntabc This is not Medieval Total War ok
IvanovHotmailboy 1 year ago
whi win on the end i don't watch all the movie
hamzamans 2 years ago
The battle and the war were won by the Bulgars. But in the end, I guess, nobody won - both nations were eventually conquered twice, only Bulgaria exists today, but it's quite different from Asparuh's Bulgaria, so the only winners are Time and Change.
NikeBG 2 years ago
the bulgarian who attaque. or who hidden in the castle,?
hamzamans 2 years ago
In this video they're defending the fortification.
NikeBG 2 years ago
how is that . he looks like the enemies of the bulgarians who win . the attaquers,
hamzamans 2 years ago
Watch the rest of the videos.
NikeBG 2 years ago
PROUD TO BE BULGARIAN !
Sixb0nes1 2 years ago
Peter Jackson, eat your heart out. This is a proper battle scene.
wargod2009 2 years ago 9
idiots these are NOT mongols these are BULGARIANS as pokermaniac0978 said! The bulgarian nation is very old and has a lot of amazing history , filled with battles with the byzantine empire of wich almost all victories, too bad this movie is so damn old , they gotta make a new one with some good director,visual effects etc. coz there is really a lot to show about the Bulgaria, it's like 1100 years older than the USA ..
Decorayahh 2 years ago
Calm down, they're not talking about the movie, but about a purely hypothetical fight between the early Romans and the late Mongols. Just like people wonder who will win in a fight of f.e. viking vs. samurai or Levski vs. CSKA.
NikeBG 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Romans vs The Mongols who do you think will win?
yusukegarners 2 years ago
well its hard to say the mongols were a hardy people ,they conquered whole of china which is no easy task.The mongol empire was one of the biggest of its time and theyre warriors were fearless indeed.But the eastern romans have discipline and christianity at theyre side.Its quite hard to guess
sleeper7271 2 years ago 2
I'd have to say mongols because the Mongolian light cavalry could easily out maneuver the phalanxes that the Romans typically used.
thudbrent 2 years ago
roman did not use phalanex ever.
anyway it dependeds if the roman dictated the battle feild so that is was not open and the mogals can not use their cavalry to full effect and it comes down to an archery dule witch the byzantine/romans were masters of aswell
Quentin0000000000 2 years ago
Are you stupid? The phalanx was one of the Roman's main formations, though it was more mobile than the Greek version. Even if it came down to an archery battle, the Mongols would still win with their increased mobility, evven if they couldn't fully use it.
thudbrent 2 years ago
romans fought in coloums
anyway i agree the mongals would most likly win a war with the romans especally since Byantine/rome was in the shit when the mongals came to europe
Quentin0000000000 2 years ago
Yeah, that's the main point. Doesn't really matter how they would win.
thudbrent 2 years ago
u must be think about the greeks, romans never used phalanx, the greeks did
gamelord309 2 years ago
Mongols. Unless the Romans managed to forge a mighty force of cavalry. The Mongols would pelt the Roman infantry with their arrows. The Romans may form a testudo but they'd sit there for hours as the Mongols circled them. Kind of a stalemate...
hollywoodwerewolf 2 years ago
As was the case, with Crassus @ Carrhae in 53bc. The parthian cavelry archers wiped out my beloved romans.
solardragon223 2 years ago
Surena rocks.
jfrd28 2 years ago
O'K, she does! but what does that have to do with my post??? or this video!
solardragon223 2 years ago
I'm just saying. XD Peace. Btw Surena's a he. I'm just saying too. Peace again.
jfrd28 2 years ago 2
Surena is the Parthian commander at the battle of Carrhae. ;)
NikeBG 2 years ago
depends on the time. During the earlie empire the romans had a cavalry and later on they also had allot of seige weapons and machines that would cut a army of horses down very fast. The first machine gun was invented with in the empire. Only real reason Rome collapse is Greed, lack of discipline and Religion divideing the nations apart..
Terlin1466 2 years ago
these are not mongols they are bulgarians
pokermaniac0978 2 years ago 2
Most Bulgarians are "Bulgarian Orthodox" though, not "Greek Orthodox", or Russian, or Serbian etc.
NikeBG 2 years ago
In this excerpt from the film Bulgarians fight against rumlyani and 60,000 Bulgarians only 1500
kukuruku20 3 years ago 3
is bulgaria muslims city too? or only christs?
KillerOfDa 3 years ago
Bulgaria is a country, ~85% of whose population is Orthodox Christian and around 13% (IIRC) is Muslim.
NikeBG 3 years ago
Where do they get all those thousands of extras? How can they afford them all?
hollywoodwerewolf 3 years ago
Most of them were soldiers from the Bulgarian army at the time. And instead of marching around in modern uniforms, they went marching around in medieval ones for some time. ;)
NikeBG 3 years ago
I understand now. The budget for the costume and armament departments must've been quite high.
hollywoodwerewolf 3 years ago
funny gyus.read some history.bulgaria has never lost battle,though we've lost wars..
primorskiq 3 years ago
Which is only somewhat true for the Third Bulgarian Tsardom (as well as never losing a battle-flag then). Otherwise, we've lost a fair ammount of battles in the First and Second ones.
NikeBG 3 years ago
Someone is going to get seriously pawned!
aeonflux67 3 years ago
i soldati bizantini erano dei mercenari barbari
Gabriele1979 3 years ago
And why do you think so?
NikeBG 3 years ago
storicamente è noto che bisanzio arrulasse tutto tranne che soldati locali, tranne per la fanteria leggera, e per gli stratioti, che in ogni caso spesso erano stranieri anche loro a cui era stata assegnata della terra...
Gabriele1979 3 years ago
Oh, I wouldn't say the stratiotes were only foreigners, but many of them were also simple Byzantine peasants, AFAIK. And many of the so-called "foreigners" were rather quickly assimilated into the Byzantine culture anyway... ;)
NikeBG 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The attackers don't look roman they look Babylonian
laosboiined 3 years ago
im proud too have the romans as my ancestors love too romania and italy brothers and have history together and peace too al other latin countries and peace too the whole earth.
mickecojo 3 years ago 5
Which side are the Roman on? The attackers or the defenders?
mrandrewlaw 3 years ago 2
The attackers, as can be seen by the distinct armour types etc.
NikeBG 3 years ago
Vonvince it awsnt eastern european...It was eastern roman.They got egypt ,syria for centurys.
gun844 3 years ago
now thats a bad ass movie, old movie no movie digital magic bullshit. just warm bodies
mm89f 3 years ago 12
dats cool
donor09 3 years ago 5
Damit where did they found so many people to take place on the movie? And yes bulgars are 90% slavs, and franks were 100% germanic.
Tiger1AuasfE 3 years ago
yes and what are your point.
Oleerkilass 3 years ago
The movie was made at the comunist time, they organised the army to go and film, so all these are soldiers from the bulgarian army ; )
A friend of mine was one of the stuff, doing the armours...
vessobesso 3 years ago 2
They should have attacked at night, and just put pitch and tar over the wood then set the place alight with flaming arrows...
Optimusnorm 3 years ago 3
wow this looks a lot like rome total war.....
NWM11Bravo 3 years ago 8
Look at 'em all swarmin' round the castle. Droppin' 'emselves into the moat with them ladders and such. No wonder the Roman Empire went and fell, no need for Gibbon to explain it.
jemmer100 3 years ago
Viva Bulgaria!!!
armyBG 4 years ago 8
of french
gun844 4 years ago 2
Acctually according to some genetic reserch many are descendentants of the original inhabitants of the balcans - the thracians.
vasil21 4 years ago
thats a lot of extras !
tygerfeet 4 years ago 2
1-2 army brigades...nothing serious. ;)
shashaveli 4 years ago 2
well whoever were fighting the Eastern Romans, must ahve been the barbarians.. plain and simple..
Tavi13 4 years ago
Yes. When they got same treatment and got defeated then the enemy was always barbarian.
spa05akw 4 years ago
wow a movie with byzantines soldiers in action! i got to see this!
truephilosopher 4 years ago 2
да живее БЪЛГАРИЯ!
batbaian79 4 years ago 3
SO MANY
NWM11Bravo 4 years ago 2
One of the advantages of a socialist state. They just called in a few army brigades to play the Byzantines.
shashaveli 4 years ago
This is the Byzantine Empire. The Greek speaking eastern half of the old Roman Empire. Byzantium was never the world conquering superpower of the western Empire. Judging from the video this must be post-Constantine so by now the civil and religious culture of what we call the Roman Empire was long gone replaced by the prototype for medieval divine right monarchy in the east.
CogitatorX 4 years ago
Indeed. So the problem is not what is Bysantium, but what WE call to be "the Roman Empire" - when thinking about the Roman Empire most people think only about the Paganistic Imperial period (and eventually the Republic), but forget that in the "end" Rome became Christian and its culture gradually changed to what would be continued by "Bysantium".
NikeBG 4 years ago
I think it's pretty commonly realized that the introduction of Christianity and it becoming the state religion of the Empire coincided with it's decline.
CogitatorX 4 years ago
True, that's a common concept for anyone observing the specific period on first glance...
NikeBG 4 years ago
The Empire evolved and change but never the less it remains the Roman empire unlike the Holy Roman empire or the empire of the francs.The video depicts the battle of the Ongala during the reighn of Constantine IV.
vasil21 4 years ago
THe holy roman empire isnt the empire of the franks....the empire is ownd by the germans.
First they reall called the easern franch empire but they in reality germans.
gun844 4 years ago 4
Just to add that the Franks were Germanic too... :)
NikeBG 4 years ago
this look more than like persia vs barbarians
space197 4 years ago
For the barbarians part - you're right, that's how it was supposed to look in the movie. But why do you think it looks like Persia?
NikeBG 4 years ago
the romans look persia if u see documents and games they excactly look like that the armour some of the sheilds and weapons
space197 4 years ago
I don't know for games, but I most seriously doubt any Persian soldier would wear the labarum on his shield. And the armour looks pretty accurate, except for the large "iron" shields...
NikeBG 4 years ago
which 1 r the romans??????
Sinfax 4 years ago
Well, I doubt they's the Steppe defenders, so I guess they must be the 60 000 attackers with the labarum on their shields. ;)
NikeBG 4 years ago
Shashaveli,mladi mi priqtelu,ne sam pijan,ne se sheguvam,a dali sam idiot neznam,no taka pishe v debelite knigi.Rimskata imperia se e kazvala Romania,a vsichki neini grajdani sa bili romei.Balgarite sme bili romei za 168 godini.
1s2k3s 4 years ago
The name of Eastern Roman Empire was Romania.
1s2k3s 4 years ago
Are you drunk, joking or simply an idiot?
shashaveli 4 years ago
Nope, he's actually correct. Of course, it's usually read with a straigh "o", unlike the modern country of Ro(u)mania. But otherwise in the Middle Ages the name Romania was often used either for Thrace, the region of Constantinople or the whole country.
NikeBG 4 years ago
Да де нали и ние сме ги наричали Ромеи
shashaveli 4 years ago
Да, а страната понякога сме я наричали Романия, особено в по-късните периоди... ;)
NikeBG 4 years ago
I Bulgars Vund Nowadays Armenian lands 354 A.C.
II Huns leader :Attila Western Europe(defeated the Roman Empire) IV-V century
III Bulgars North of the Caucasian mountains IV century
burakyuzbasioglu 4 years ago
Bulgars could be counted from the Turk-Althaian ethno-linguictic group.(It may sound very difficult but it is easy:Turk-Althaian means the name of the group and ethno-linguistic means having similar way of living & language.)So,as the Bulgars lived somewhere in central Asia the migration of the huns and other barbarian tribes made them migrate too.From then on they divided into 3 groups-
burakyuzbasioglu 4 years ago
I do not see any Romans...
Roman55Legions 4 years ago
Then you're probably looking at some other movie... ;)
NikeBG 4 years ago
Byzantines to be correct. But the Byzantine empire IS the sole surviving part of the Roman empire and called itself so. Byzantium is the name given by science to distinguish both.
shashaveli 4 years ago
Exactly! Byzantium is a relatively modern term, created by historians and never used by the real "Byzantines", who called themselves Romans and were the only direct descendants of the old Roman Empire.
NikeBG 4 years ago
bulgaria forever
petiadinova 4 years ago
the romans kick some ass in their time
ultimatespider17 4 years ago
whats this battle about? googled it couldnt find anything
beyinsiz 4 years ago
The so-called "Battle of the Onglos". You can search for "Battle of Ongala" in the Wikipedia for some basic, although not very accurate description.
NikeBG 4 years ago
what is acceptable for you?
do you expect video record from 4 th century show that bulgars languages?
god bless you my friend ,
you are champion
zoramos 4 years ago
Yes, it's called being a historian, not a laic. If you prefer to be the latter, I prefer to be the first.
Kanasubigi is not Turkic, as it isn't proven as such. It's only one theory, while there are many other theories about its meaning, quite more plausible by that. Same is valid for the meaning of "Bulgar".
NikeBG 4 years ago
Using the Orkhon script doesn't make someone Turkic - most Bulgar inscriptions are on Greek, so if using an alphabet designates automatically your ethnos, then the Bulgars would be Greek, wouldn't they? Think a little before claiming nonsenses!
P.S. Asparukh is most definitely not Turkish, but a proven Persian name. Bad example of yours...
NikeBG 4 years ago
khan word itelf is turkish
orkhun script tell about turkic tribes to us
not greeks or any other nations
i forget this is also not clear for you ,
zoramos 4 years ago
Khan might be Turkic, but the Bulgar rulers never called themselves "khan". Only three of them used the title "kanasubigi", which they put BEFORE their name (i.e. kanasubigi Malamir), unlike the Turkic syntax, which puts the "khan" AFTER the name (as in Genghis Khan). Which shows that even if the Bulgars used the title khan (which is not proven, but merely suggested), it was just a loan-word from a process of Turkicization, while the syntaxis basis itself was non-Turkic.
NikeBG 4 years ago
For the rest you seem either not to understand or not to WANT to understand. But I don't blame you - it appears you're on a pre-determined path to turn all the historical nations in Asia into Turkic, be they such or not, with all means necessary.
NikeBG 4 years ago
orkhon script mention bulgars ,
is not enough for you
even bulgar word it self is turkish
is clear for you
and the fact that the Bulgars used an alphabet similar to the Turkic Orkhon script
is not clear for you
even asparukh name itself turkish
is not clear for you
zoramos 4 years ago
what i send is general truth ,all historian agree on it
whether you accept it or not cannot change anything
zoramos 4 years ago
What you "send" is neither agreed by "all historians" (which is practically impossible anyway), nor it is a "general truth" (especially considering it holds no sense as of yet). Perhaps I should recommend you to think and paraphrase what you want to say, as it is currently rather illogical and unclear.
NikeBG 4 years ago
hahahahah
you dont understand what you read
or you didnt read what i send
what i comment is so clear and proven truth
re read what i write down and think on it ,
by the way it is not important ,
log in goole and search who is
hemmel ,nikolsky (famous russian archaeologist,founder of assyriology in russia ),rawlinson(father of assyriology)
they can teach you who is turks ,bulgars ,cumans
zoramos 4 years ago
Well, you didn't say anything, except posting three links with little to no meaning, so there's nothing I should re-read for now. As for the Russian scholars - I'll check them out, but only because they're "famous" doesn't make them automatically correct. And if they suggest a history of 17 000 years of ANY ethnos, that means they're 99.99% definitely incorrect.
NikeBG 4 years ago
kanasubigi is turkish word
is not clear for you
zoramos 4 years ago
Cumans are also the Bulgarian surname Kumanov (feminine Kumanova)
zoramos 4 years ago
turkish people has got 172 different tribes ,
thousands of dialects
kuman ,kipcak,kirgiz,tatar,hazar,turkmen ,ucok ,bozok ,pazirik it goes on like this
kuman ,kipchak,bulgars lost their identity,i can show you 4 th century bulgar document ,it simple turkish on it
zoramos 4 years ago
Oh, really? Come on, show it to me and to the whole world! Wonder why it hasn't been shown before (or perhaps somebody needed time to finish it, huh?)...
NikeBG 4 years ago
hahahaha
it is not Turkish web site ,it is general truth
i have already send web site link ,here youtube doesnt allow for web site link
zoramos 4 years ago
The first one you sent me is of what appears to be an Egyptian papyrus and is most definitely not on any Turkic or Bulgar runic script.
The second link is about Cuman prayers, which has little to do with the Bulgars (Cumans mixed with the Bulgarians in the XIIIc).
The third link is about the Chuvash, who are only considered to be eventually the closest to the remains of what might have been the Bulgar language, if it was a Turkic one.
NikeBG 4 years ago
If I was you and wanted to emphasize the Turkic influence on the Bulgars (which most certainly exists), I'd outline the three inventorial inscriptions, which show that at least the military elite has used at least some Turkic military terms, plus the fact that, as Zacharius Rhetor writes, some Bulgars lived in cities, but some Bulgars also lived in tents and the latter might have been exactly nomadic Turkic people.
NikeBG 4 years ago
Bulgarian mediaеval dynasties Asen, Shishman and Terter had some Cumans' roots.
zoramos 4 years ago
Yes, as well as there's still the town of Kumanovo in modern Macedonia. ;) However, that has little to do with the Bulgars - those dynasties are from the Second Bulgarian Empire and Bulgarian is not the same as Bulgar.
NikeBG 4 years ago
Bulgars did not loose their identity. That is why the country is still called Bulgaria - not Slavia or something similiar. Bulgars were not a small tribe (old Propaganda, but were many. Bulgarians do not look like Slavic people. Slavic came down to Balkans from the north - tall, blonds with blue eyes.
spa05akw 4 years ago 5
Bulgaria is annexd some this by slavic peoples...so you are 3/4 slavic and 1/4 or less bulgar.
gun844 4 years ago
even bulgar word it self is turkish ,
you try to say bulgar is not turkic origine ,
turks has 17.000 years history ,turks began to immigrate to west 7000 bce
maxmaxtar 4 years ago
Yes, and they came from Mars, right? Or from the Sun? Please, be serious! To speculate with linguistics and some of the numerous theories to fit to your favour - ok. But claiming that some ethnos has 17 000 years of history is absolutely ridiculous! Not to mention that the Turkic ethnos itself appeared as such long after the appearance of the Bulgars (in the so-called Dark Ages, not 50 000 BC).
NikeBG 4 years ago
you mean hemmel ,nikolsky (famous russian archaeologist,founder of assyriology in russia ),rawlinson(father of assyriology) was wrong ,
read these scientist`s artcle then come to discuss with me
zoramos 4 years ago
They might be wrong, they might not. However, the above interpretation is most definitely wrong and any person with some sense of logic and at least a bit of common historical knowledge can see it.
NikeBG 4 years ago
Besides, I'm not saying that bulga or Bulgar is from or not from Turkic origin. I'm saying that it is merely one of the many theories and it's sustaining many critics and is now losing ground from the modern researches.
NikeBG 4 years ago
bulgars are turkic origine
the Bulgar language, now extinct, is a distant branch of the Turkic languages, and broadly classified as Bulgar Turkic,
whose only living relative is the Chuvash language.[ It is supported, among other things, by the facts that some Bulgar words contained in the few surviving stone inscriptions, and in other documents (mainly military and hierarchical terms such as tarkan, bagatur, and probably kan and kanartikin "prince") appear to be of Turkic origin,
maxmaxtar 4 years ago
that the Bulgars apparently used a 12-year cyclic calendar similar to the one adopted by Turkic with names and numbers that are deciphered as Turkic, and that the Bulgars' supreme god was probably called Tangra, a deity widely known among the Turkic peoples[2]. Some also point out the presence of a (fairly small) number of Turkic loanwords in the Slavic Old Bulgarian language, and the fact that the Bulgars used an alphabet similar to the Turkic Orkhon script,
maxmaxtar 4 years ago
The 12-year cyclic calendar is also similar to the Chinese one, and according to its researchers it's better translated through the Iranic languages.
NikeBG 4 years ago
There are absolutely no mentions of Tangra in the Bulgar inscriptions, except one single "...s Taggra..." on a very damaged stone inscription, which early researchers quickly took to be the "theos Tangra", like the Turkic sky-god Tengri, considering the predetermined thesis for the Bulgar's nomadic origin, which now loses more and more ground with the modern free researches.
NikeBG 4 years ago
and the fact that the Bulgars used an alphabet similar to the Turkic Orkhon script
maxmaxtar 4 years ago
even bulgar word it self is turkish Bulgar is derived from the Turkic verb bulģa "to mix, shake, stir" and its derivative bulgak "revolt, disorder"
maxmaxtar 4 years ago
One of the many, many possible meanings, as well as "sabis hunters", "balkharans" etc. Of course, it's the most convenient for the pan-Turkic supporters, but that doesn't make it correct only because it fits them best.
NikeBG 4 years ago
Possible Turkic influence, but not necessarily being Turkic in general.
NikeBG 4 years ago
there is no iranic 12 years calendar ,
12 years calendar is turkic shaman tradition ,chinese and persian never been shaman in history
maxmaxtar 4 years ago
I never said there is an Iranic 12-years calendar. I said that there is a Chinese one and that the Bulgar calendar (or the little that remains of it) is best translated through the Iranic languages - i.e. that when it's translated through Turkic languages, certain errors in the cycle of the calendar appear.
NikeBG 4 years ago
NikeBG who is attacking ? Great movie =)
Norguy77 4 years ago
The Romeans (Byzantines) are attacking the Bulgar camp at the so-called Onglos. The year is 680, the location - somewhere near the Danube's delta. ;)
NikeBG 4 years ago
The title of the Bulgarian rulers wasn't khan, it was KANASJUVIGI
pbresist 4 years ago
The correct transcription for the Latin alphabet is "kanasubigi". ;)
NikeBG 4 years ago
kanasubigi is turkish word,
kanasubigi as a whole are lord of the army, from the reconstructed Turkic phrase *sü begi, parallelling the attested Old Turkic sü baši,
maxmaxtar 4 years ago
Yes, there is such a theory. As well as there's even a theory that it's "kanas (kniaz) u bogu" - Slavic form for "ruler from God", the massively used by the Bulgars Greek phrase "ek theo archon". Like nearly all things about the ancient Bulgar's history, there are only theories, none of which is finally proven for now.
NikeBG 4 years ago