Articles about the “concept” and “danger” of “Turanism” in political and publicistic works are often published in the international media, and this is so convincing that it has an impact on some scientific literature. In fact, on the contrary, materials obtained from scientific literature should be a source of political science and journalistic materials. In this context, we see that attempts to find a “brand” in historical research are still ongoing.We try to reveal the general picture, taking contradictions on this topic from the sources of the works of Nizami Ganjavi and Firdosi, as well as on the basis of existing historical documents. Has there ever been a state called Turan in history? If not, what was the source and purpose of this legend? If there was no Turan, how did Iran exist? Who won the war between Iran and Turan? If Firdosi knew this story, then why does Nizami write in his works the complete opposite of this story?As you can see, in addition to collecting tips from the works of Nizami and Firdosi to answer many questions, one can distinguish place names and ethnonyms from ancient mythology and Zoroastrianism and determine the true “threat” by creating a general picture, defining the history and geography of events.This article attempts to answer some questions by comparing a number of historical, literary events and positions.