Talk:Old Great Bulgaria

im still confused about ethnic bulgars

im confused about the ethnic bulgars. im not trying to confuse them with modern bulgarians either my confusion is as to roughly when the last of these old ethnic bulgars may have lived. 76.211.5.253 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is simple Khan Asparuh, the son of Khan Kubrat (the last ruler of Old Great Bulgaria) moved the country south into what became [The First Bulgarian Empire], the Bulgars then became Bulgarians after merging with local Slavs and remnants of Thracian. Stephen.Kratz (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

bulgar was confederation, not a nation. the confederation was of turkic (kutrigur) and armenian (utigur,vanand) tribes. the principle of ruling was similar to ottoman. the ruling house/family was bulgar. the subjects were mainly macedonian and thracian peoples (this is concerning bulgarian empire). about patria onoguria it was again, slavs, varyags, finnes, uygurs, tartars etc. ruled by turkic-armenian family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.7.232 (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The state of Onogur vs. the state of Bulgarians (Bulgars)

I have an issue with that sentence: "Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία in Byzantine chronicles) was а term used by Byzantine historians to refer to Onoguria during the reign of the Bulgar ruler Kubrat"

It introduces ambiguity about the name that state used to represent itself (and was referred to) in its diplomatic correspondence. We know that Heraclius had written diplomatic relations with Kubrat referring to his state as Bulgarian (or Bulgar - an "artificial" term introduced in the English language to distinguish modern Bulgarians from their ancestors. This has been a habit of some western historians since Hieronymus Wolf that they never applied to themselves by the way, but that`s abother topic). So we do have the primary sources which is the treaty of 635 between Great Bulgaria and the (Eastern) Roman Empire which is a de facto international diplomatic recognition of the state's status ... and name as Bulgarian state. Now can anyone cite me a diplomatic document from that time that calls THAT state Onoguria ... ? I certainly have not heard of such thing. As it might seem we are ignoring the basic principle of historiography and the primary sources. We decide to call a historic state with a name that would be strange to its contemporaries and the gradually phase out the name it actually used to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.174.182 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

When you've got the primary sources and the original Bulgarian names, include them. Someone included "Bulgarian" at the top, but I have to assume that's the modern Bulgarian name for them and still not their endonym, which should be Proto-Turkic or something. — LlywelynII 06:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Onogur

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge

---

• 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.

[poss. dupl. support] 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)

[poss. dupl. oppose] 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?

• [Oppose]. 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.
• [Oppose]. 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)
• [Support]. 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.
• Do not merge, but add more information! If the Heracleus referred to the state of his contemporary Kubrat as Bulgaria, in his diplomatic letters that implies this name existed and someone told Heracleus that it was called this way... or do you imply he decided to establish diplomatic relations with another monarchy and instead of referring to it by the name that state was known among its people, he just made up a name for it... Should someone consider logic and basic historiography principles here... if there is a document about it - there is a history of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.174.182 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose and close. As should be obvious from reading the respective pages, Great Old Bulgaria was a short-lived state led by a tribe known as the Onogurs. The proposal fails to adequately argue how the two pages are not

  ...
  2) ... separate topics [that] could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
  3) ... discrete subjects [that] deserve their own articles even though they may be short

  Absolutely, the history of the Onogurs before and after OGB (GOB?) needs more and better treatment, but that's no reason to merge it with a much shorter-lived polity. — LlywelynII 06:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ukraine related?!?

Ukraine related?!? Wtf

Look at the map. Also, kindly sign your posts. — LlywelynII 06:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

(Don Hose 13:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

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?

(Don Hose 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

Again, look at the map. A better way of arguing than "But Russians don't care about these people!" is that really at the time, the land in question had nothing to do with Russia. Then it just becomes a question of which university departments are funding the research into OGB-era archaeology. — LlywelynII 06:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Obviously someone already fixed this, but fwiw, Internedko was right. The page was not POV in the 7th century and its still not POV today. Cf. WP:NPOV#Naming. — LlywelynII 06:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Kindly sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Also, I'm not sure what your point is or what your sources are, but afaik this state wasn't Finnish... — LlywelynII 06:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolute Monarchy?

Do the sources say so? I believe this is still questionable. Please define absolut monarchy! One may rather think it was a kind of tribal federation combining say absolutist" and "democratic" elements.

critical thinking.

xiongnu 100AD -hunnic 400AD- great old bulgaria 512AD

what turkic are you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria

how is it that turk is older term than Bulgar when great old bulgaria can not be lemon fresh at 600 AD. in order something to be great and old it needs to be at least 100 years old if not more????????????????????????? he is a descendant from the HUNS

47. And when the inhabitants of Byzantium heard this news, they said: 'This project is concerned with Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of Constantinople, and received into the Christian community in his childhood and had grown up in the imperial palace.[1]

[1] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashina_(clan)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

zivko wojnikov

anyone knows how to translate the works of prof. zivko wojnikov????????

anyone??????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

very interesting how a greek national doesn't allow a bulgarian national to write about the bulgarian history.

you can censorship all you want,this only proves your real "democracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC) http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD_650KubratBulgaria.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cross.bg/istoriya-bulgarite-bulgarskiya-1382006.html#axzz31tj4itwf

bulgarians are not turks.

bulgarian parliament passed a law anyone who uses the term turk will have problem with european law.

the term turk needs to be replaced with huns or xiongnu.

reference --the link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

irrelevant info

mingazov is not a proper source.

he is not an official Bulgarian scholar.

Russian and turkish propaganda can write all they want, but the truth is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

john of nikiu

CHAPTER CXX the oldest documents about Bulgaria and Kubrat are from the chronics of JOhn of Nikiu in early 600 AD:

47. And when the inhabitants of Byzantium heard this news, they said: 'This project is concerned with Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of Constantinople, and received into the Christian community in his childhood and had grown up in the imperial palace.'

CHAPTER LXXXIX 74. But immediately on his return to the emperor, the latter removed him from his command, and appointed in his room another general, named Cyril, of the province of Illyria. 75. And he also gave battle to Vitalian, and there was great slaughter on both sides. Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

great old bulgaria 165-681 AD

Старая Великая Болгария(165-668гг.).[edytuj kod] На сегодняшний день мировой историографией официально признано, что на территории современной Украины и Северного Кавказа в VII в.н.э. существовало государство Старая Великая Болгария(165-668гг.). http://www.kubrat.in.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58%3A2012-07-20-13-56-51&catid=4%3A2011-03-04-13-21-14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.250.219 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting source, do you have more sources on this topic? Should this be in the article? Stephen.Kratz (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Agathon

Between notes 14 and 15 there is a reference to Agathon which links - incorrectly - to the Greek poet Agathon (448-400 BC). The Agathon mentioned under Origins may well have been Agathon the Reader who in the early 8th century was at the library in Constantinople and therefore may have been well placed. However, unless and until it is established to have been Agathon the Reader I suggest changing the linked reference by removing the link to the poet Agathon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.6 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for noting this. I've removed the link, given that the Agathon of the 4th century BC couldn't possibly be the late Byzantine author. Rather than guestimating who it refers to, I've tagged it as needing a citation (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the content to demonstrate that it is reliably sourced. The content has been in place for some time, therefore some editor may be able to find such a source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)