Talk:Old Great Bulgaria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Old Great Bulgaria: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
 |
Old Great Bulgaria is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
Old Great Bulgaria is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Merge with Onogur
- Agree because these essentially refer to the same thing but Onogur is the native name.
- Not agree. History is teaching us to not to make the sane mistakes.Nothing is same.There is the difference between the Great Bulgaria = Onogur from one side and the Old Great Bulgaria. We have to read not only the Bysantion and the Roman Historians but also the Tibet, Chinese, Persian/Iranian/, Arabian and Mongols.
- What, were these not two names for the same entity? If so, they should have been merged. Unless they coincidentally had rulers who lived at the same times with the same names, they are indeed one and the same. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's very simple - there existed also Kutrigur, Utigur.... and etc. Onogour is just one of the tribes that were in Old Great Bulgaria. For example, today we have France and Germany and Austria... About 1000-1200 years back there was one state... So??? let's merge their history!?! The history of a single tribe in sudden state is not the history of the state itself, right?
- Ukraine related?!? Wtf
- These are different things - "Great Bulgaria" was the name given to the state of Kubrat by
the Bisantians, as they make links to the "Old Great Bulgaria" in order that they give the rights of Kubrat that he reached the glory of the Prehistorical known times. For more infos please read the Chinese, iranian and tibetian historians.
- I do not agree. We as Bulgarian kids are thought that Great Bulgaria existed and we are 8 million of us. Even if it is a different name for the same place at the same time it could be a different point of view and it is. Do not merge it please. Me 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please get rid of that Onoghur article and put it here Old Bulgaria. Great Bulgaria was on the upper Volga. Don't confound the two under one false name please. Old Bulgaria spread from the plains north of the Danube eastwards to the Volga. It lasted only during Baltavar Kubrat & Baltavar Bayan III's lifetimes and was taken over by the Khazars. Great Bulgaria on the Upper Volga and modern Bulgaria south of the danube were both its offspring. The terms I am using are those as published in Muir's Historical Atlas.
[edit] Russian history-related?
This article describes part of Bulgarian history, not Russian. Bulgaria is not part of Russia and it had never been. As it is said above, just because "before 1000-1200 years back there was one state..." we can say just because once this territory has been part of Russia (or USSR) this doesn't mean that this article, describes part of Russian history. At the time where there is Old Great Bulgaria, there is not Russian territory.
It is neither Russian nor Bulgarian, it covers Hungary, Romania, Moldavia, Ukraina, and Volga Russia. I would say East European.
I agree that territory covers this countries but here we are talk about history not geography. How can Old Great Bulgaria not be related to Bulgaria, when present Bulgaria originate from Old Great Bulgaria? And something else - isn't Bulgaria part of East Europe?
[edit] Do we need so much hype?
The title of the article unpleasantly smacks of original research. I recommend moving to the Bulgar Khanate or something along these lines. --Ghirla -трёп- 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I support this solution, as it is the fittest name for this state.--BlueDome 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yes, we do!
I do understand that the existance of a state with the name of Old Great Bulgaria on the lands of modern "great" Russia and Ukraine is offensive to the Russian pride, Girlandajo but that is the truth. For your information in the British museum the name of this very same state of Kubrat is given as simply Bulgarian Empire. If you prefer we can move it to that name? But no, you would like it to be something demeaning like Bulgar khanate, don't you? Nobody has yet proven that it was a khanate at all and there is no reference to such state in the sources. What they are talking about is Old Great Bulgaria or simply Great Bulgaria, like it or not! How can it be a original research as the name is attested in the prime sources? This is the rightfull name of article and I am against any moving to misleading names that someone with affected national pride can come up with! Sorry about the hard words but I am really offended by your proposal and even more so by the real reasons behind it! Internedko 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- How do you see "the real reasons" behind my proposal? Are you aware of WP:AGF? For what it's worth, I don't see anything demeaning in the name "Bulgar Khanate" for this short-lived state. The earliest predecessor of "modern great Russia and Ukraine" sits at Rus' Khaganate, after all. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If its contemporaries have called that state Great Bulgaria apparently there was a reason behind it, don't you think so? Especially when these words come from Byzantium - the greatest empire of its time. I would rather believe the Patriarch Nikephoros of Byzantium than Girlandajo. If Russia started off as Russ Khaganate I don't see why this should be the case for Bulgaria? The mere teritorial proximity does not play here as these 2 states are also separated by centuries. You can not make comparisons of any kind. If you read all the materials about the Bulgars and Bulgaria you will notice that no Bulgarian state was sever called khaganate (unlike Avar states), and all Bulgar rulers were known only by name but not by title unlike Avars' leades which were often refered to as the Avar khagan. The title khan or khagan is NOT proven historically in the case of Bulgarian leaders but accepted by some modern 'scholars'. Since old times all Bulgarian states have been called Bulgaria and noting else (as Balhara in Central Asia,the first known of them ) and up to this day. Lets not try twisting the facts in favour of some obscure personal reasons.The name of article does not cotradict ANY of the Wikipedia rules. Internedko 12:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Bulgar Khanate is more fitting of the POV-pushing "Old Great Bulgaria". This is a sufficient reasont for renaming the article.--BlueDome 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Onogur People
I do not know in Hungarian language what this 10 tribes means. A lot of history in Hungarian web sides (of which I understand 30 to 40 per cent, but with coresponding Finnsh text nearly all). In Finnish old history, (when tights between "Unkari and Suomi") were much closer than even today, the seven tribes were called Onogurs. According to old Finnish literature they were linked someway to Ostjaki (Handa-hui) and Vogul peoples behind Urals or living along now a days Kama River. The first written mention is from old Chinese mentions where they paid a lot of money of these "young beautiful girls" together with other Finno Ugrian peoples living behind of "Central Empire" about 500 - 400 BC have been found out in China during the last thirty years. (See also James S. Gregory: "Russian Land, Soviet People", London 1968.) According to old Finnish history the State which existed between "Central State" and rest of the world was known "Hiong-nu" between Altai and China and Hunnis (Huns) were just one tribe which lived there.
According to this Hungarians existed in old Herodotos history by name of "Iurkis" or "Thushovads" living on the course of Kivi (now Russian Kama River) by detailed describition how they treated their horses and were separated from other Uralic people in this area. (By the way, after 1944 the Soviet Government under Allied Control Committee tried to forbidden this book, considering it as too dangerous to be in public libraries in Finland.) The Hungarians were mentioned in addition to one Kazar tribe joined to Hungarians called "Kabaris" to enter to Pannonia in 895 - 869 under the Holy Izstvan (Stephan), using Karpathian gorges on their way to Pannonia. According to old documents from late 1880 and 1910 the Maris called their "old relatives" Thuvassians (ex Itil Bolgars) with name "Suaslan Maris".
JN
