|Volga Bulgaria has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The Bulgars of Kubrat's son and appointed heir Batbayan Bezmer moved from the Azov region in about AD 660, commanded by the Kazarig Khagan Kotrag to whom he had surrendered.
Where is the quoted source for this change? I've been interested in this matter for years and not once have I found any text claiming that Kotrag was not a son of Kubrat but some sort of Kazarig general, whatever that might mean. This change has also been made on the pages of Kotrag and Kubrat, again without quoting an sources? Jorram (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Something wrong happened to the sentence after the last edit:
- Now in its place is in 160 km. in south of Kazan, Tatarstan
Anyone who know the truth, please fix. Mikkalai 05:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course, truth!
Bulgaria was founded around 660 by Kotrag Khan, the son of Kubrat Khan.
At the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers an independent state was founded around the year 800.
These two statements seem to conflict and either it should be clarified what the difference is, or one should be removed. -- Juicy 04:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Produced in the 1930s unsubstantiated "Sun Language Theory" and "Solar theory of history"-axis with the wikipedia reason for this false history and ethnographic mission officials would like to invite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaali (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
If the capital was Muslim, isn't the entire state related to Islam too? Misheu 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
this article has been written by some ravenous panturanist,NOT A SINGLE HISTORICAL SOURCE SAYS THAT THE BULGAR LEADERS WERE CALLED KHANS.The Danube Bulgars made stone inscriptions and there they call their leader's title BEFORE the name.And the title is KANASUBIGI(in iranian-"placed from god") not "khan".
The fact that you so definitely say that the Bulgars were turkic shows how much you know Bulgar history.There are 18 hypotheses of their origin and NONE has been 100% proved yet.Most of the facts link to the iranian theory however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BulgarEmperor (talk • contribs) Latebird 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I have nothing to object. First of all, the ethnic origins of any nation are indifferent for me. Turkic, firsst of all, is a term for the peoples, speaking the Turkic languages. As you had understood, Kazakh people and Azerbaijani people arre both Turkic, but it is evident, that the Azerbaijanis are of Caucasoid race, whereas the Kazakhs are of Asian racial structure. The Bolgar, arrived to Idel-Ural spoke Turkic language, and this is doubtless. As for panturansim, I'd never claimed for it. It this article I accented that the Volga Tatars are in fact Volga Bulgars, whereas the Volga Bulgars themselves are a people of mixed origin, and the most of them were not neither Turkic, neither Iranian. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>>>Actually it is not "doubtless" that the Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, as modern Bulgarian has a huge load of Iranic/Persian words, that are still in modern Iranian languages today, and this after the Bulgar language fused with a slavic language. Other sources I've sen mention that Bulgar was a language related to Turkic - prototype Turkic, so not really Turkic in the first place.22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
And what sources to Britannica and Campbrige provide?That's it-NONE.Even Britannica says "The Bulgars,people PROBABLY from turkic origin!" What sources can you provide that the Bulgars at Volga talked turkic BEFORE mongol invasions?Again i will remove these bullshitted titles "Kotrag Khan" it shows nothing more than your own ignorance because like i said-NOT A SINGLE PROOF IS FOUND FOR THE TITLE OF THE BULGARS BEING "KHAN".In their own stone inscriptions we the Danube Bulgars call their leaders "Kanasubigi(iranian=placed from god)" and the title is BEFORE the name itself!But i suppose some turkish nationalists and panturkists here know better than them?
>>>>>THIS CAN BE SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL - GO READ THE TALK PAGE OF THE BULGARS, LATEST SECTION - COMPLAINT OF RACISM - TO SEE ALL THE SOURCES SHOWING EXTREMELY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE BULGARS WERE IRANIC - IT IS PROVEN BY DNA EVIDENCE DONE LAST YEAR - MODERN BULGARIANS AND THUS BULGARS ARE VERY CLOSE TO IRANIC/PAMIRIAN PEOPLE AND VERY FAR FROM TURKIC AND SLAVIC PEOPLE. ARGUMENT IS OVER!126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- written by BulgarEmperor forgot to sign in
- First of all, let me remove any disputable statement about the origins of the proto-Bulgars. The people, reached Idel-Ural in the 8th century (not just under Kotrag), were PROBABLY Turco-speaking (I think we can say nothing about ethnic origins). In the context of the Volga Bulgaria, the Bulgars appeared as a single nation only after their Islamization and Bulgarization of all other peoples (of Finnic, Magyar, Iranian and Turkic origins, nomad and agricultural). The proto-Bulgars were only the main people in the area, but not the only.
- As for language of the proto-Bulgars I can say nothing, but it is well known, that the Volga Bulgars spoke Turkic language of Bulgar group, and the Chuvash language is the only living language of this group. The monument of those epoch, written with Arabic show the existence of this language at least among the noble circles. After the Mongol (not Turkic!) invasion the Muslim Bulgars shifted to the Turkic language of Kypchak group, which turned to the modern Tatar language, spoken also among some other groups of Volga Tatars, not of Volga Bulgar origin..
- As for Kotrag, his title is nosence for this article, as he didn't led the arrival Bulgars, as he was already dead when Kotrag's offshoot reached the Idel-Ural. As for me, I find khan in many articles, as in an article Khan' itself. The later Volga Bulgar rulers were known as Elteber. I replace any titles, espetially which are lesser known as for the Westerners, as for the descends of the Volga Bulgars themselves.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 11:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
PS. The wikipedia PROBABLY is not a place to show someone's Anti-Turkism.
This is not anti Turkisism at all, but simply aknowledgement of facts and recent evidence which does not only suggest that they were not Turkic, but basically proves that they were Iranic - from the DNA research done by the 2010 Tangra Bulgarian expedition in Tajikistan (Iranic land) - http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians) AND - http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006)- it showed, pretty clearly, that the modern Bulgarians (and thus their ancestors the Bulgars) are very close genetically to Iranic/Pamirian people and very far from Turkic and Slav people, and lets not forget the huge number of Iranic words in modern Bulgarian too - the Bulgars were most probably NOT TURKIC SPEAKING, I have even read in other places in the internet (non Bulgarian) saying that it is only assumed that they spoke a Turkic language - in other words there is not lots of evidence at all of a Turkic language. AND YOU SAY THE TATARS ARE NOT OF BULGAR ORIGIN - ARE YOU RETARTED - OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW NOTHING OF HISTORY - OH MY WORD! EVEN THE CITY OF KAZAN NOW, AT THE MOMENT, ADMITS TO BE DESCENDED FROM THE BULGARS - THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE, NOT TO MENTION THE MANY PHOTOS ON THE INTERNET SHOWING GRAFFITI ON THE STREETS SAYING "LONG LIVE BULGARIA" AND IN A SOCCER MATCH IN KAZAN (CAPITAL OF TATARSTAN)THE CROWD WAS WAVING A BULGARIAN FLAG. TO SAY THAT YOU DONT KNOW ANY HISTORY! (http://groznijat.tripod.com/b_lang/bl_a_v.html) AND THE MANY SIMILARITIES OF MODERN BULGARIAN CULTURE TO IRANIC CULTURE - :http://samoistina.at.ua/2/similarities.htm - SCHOLARLY SOURCES. Before you talk nonsense first educate yourself and then comment. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Chuvash people actually have a language which has both strong turkic and iranic elements and is not understood easily by other turkomongols from Altai. The Bulgars at Volga mixed with local finno-ugrics and later turkomongols of Gehghis Khan and you try to tell me that the Chuvash are their pure descendants? What arab sources saying the language was turkic?In fact Ibn Fadlan clearly differates them from the turkics living on the borders of the state.Check those many articles here which say the title "was Khan" and see what references provide?Works of the long dead historian Zlatarski and his gang?Or maybe Irechek?Both pure russophiles which together with the "turkic origin" taught to them by the russians also say that the Danube Bulgars were "10 000" and after defeating the 60 000 army of Constantine IV they created the state and melted immediately amongs the slavs.(therefore Bulgarians are "pure slavs" and must feel close Russia and later USSR). Not a single of the references in Wikipedia can provide a source for the title being "Khan".Same goes btw for the belief in "Tengri".
P.S. If some turks want a greater Turan with Bulgaria included then they should go and howl in the greywolf sites,not Wikipedia.Live in Turkey no one wants your extermination just don't make such ridiculous claims over Bulgarians because it makes you look funny.Not only you in person-every panturkist in the world who says Bulgars were "turkics".
- Probably, I said nothing about the disputable origin of the Volga Bulgars. As for the language, it is possible, that the language of the Volga Bulgars was not those of proto-Bulgars (and I never claimed for Volga Bulgars to be of Altaian origin, as is see by their racial structure). But the language of late Volga Bulgars was Turkic (see Kashgari), but it is still disputable, was it a language Bolgar group (like Chuvash) or already a language of Kypchak group (Kashgari states, that it was the last). In the context of the Volga Bulgars - a Bulgar means a human from the bulk of tribes, some of them being non-Turkic, but with the Turkic admixture at least. The mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria made a little impact to the ethnic structure of the region (an antropological research represent than only 10% of the Volga Tatars are of Mongol race, other being Caucasian). So, the Turkisation probably took place some centuries before, in the making of the Volga Bulgaria. And there is not also a single fact, prooving the Iranian origin of the Volga Bulgars. (no monument with the Iranian text was found).
- As for the Balkans, I can say nothing, as I'm far from the history of this region. I never claimed Danube Bulgars to be Turkic, or if I did, without a purpose to propagate any theory, as you do.
- Why do you claiming me pan-Tûranist? The most of Tatarstan's and Chuvashia's population consider their ancestors to be Turkic at least in terms of language, just not to see Danube Bulgaria under the yoke of the Greater Turkey. For us it is an indisputable fact. So, how you explain the existance of the Iranized Turkic of Turkized Iranian Chuvash language without the existance of the people, who was not Turkic at all? But you are anti-Turkist, indeed, and probably a Russophob. You even writing turkic without capitalisation :))) And all your contribs are related just to the Volga Bulgaria article... it makes you look not funny.
- Moreover, the Iranian theory likes me, as it features the peoples of Idel-Uarl as Europan, not Asian, but you claims that I am a pan-Tûranist are inadmissible. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- PS. И вапще, убей сибя апстену.
The chuvash language is not understandable to the othet turkomongols it's quite distinct from them although it has turkic influence.There is exactly zero sources about volga Bulgar language neither turkomongol neither iranian but in the Danube bulgarian it's different and i use it for the volga ones also.
- However, Chuvash language is a Turkic language with the possible Iranian or Finnic influence, but it is Turkic. It couldn't be easily understood, but after some research many characteristics could be found similar. As for turkomongol, there is no turkomongos. Possibly Turko-Iranians or Turko-Finns were a constuent part of the VB and late Khanate of Kazan, but no mongols.
Continue your propaganda the greywolf leaders will be proud of you!
- If I am a propagandist, please, tell me an aim of my propaganda? A? So, why a history of my native land should be forged only due to 500-years of bloodly Turkish yoke over the Balkans and someone's anti-Turkism? If you hate everithing Turkic so mach, please, forget about the Volga Bulgaria. The population of this land originate mostly not from the proto-Bulgars, as well as those of Danube Bulgaria. The nomad are always lesser in number, than agriculturists, which lived in the area long before the proto-bulgar arrival. More over, every archaeologist tell you, that nothing was happened with the Volga Bulgaria outside of major cities, damaged by the Mongols and the population kept its roots. however, possibly, the language shift took place, but it was already Turkic: dead Bulgar princess was named Altın Börtek , i.e. Turkic name, meaning Golden Grain. The monument dates back to the 1297, just after the Mongol invasion. The language shift possibly took place before the invasion.
- So, I said nothing about proto Bulgars, but Volga Bulgars were Turkic people in 10-13th centuries.
- So, what leaders are proud of your? So, may we both dislike Turks, (for me, Turkish culture and pan-Tûranim endange another Turkic cultures, such as thse of Crimean Tatars). I never claimed for the Greater Tûran or something similar, as this is a legend, but no more. I write a history I belive to be true and traditional. So, It is interesting for me, why are you claiming me bozkurt so provless?
- So, I'm asking only your declaration that I'm not a pan-Tûranist. Probably, I'm a Bulgarist. Moreover, I find Iranian theory more attractive for myself, it makes my people more European, than if Bulgars would be Turkic. But first of all I find no proof for this theory and the second you have not rights to claim em pan-Türanist. It is abusive for me.
- And please, stop the debate. Probably PRETOVARVANE happens on this page :)))
- Аффтар, убей сибя апстену дважды!!!
I followed several wikipedia links to this page after reading in several places about the apparent link between some of the peoples of Volga Bulgaria and the ancient Huns. Yet the chronology set force in this article places the Bulgar arrival in the region much later than other sources and is silent on the Hun issue. What's going on here?Ftjrwrites (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Itil Bolghari / Rav(a) Volghari
What if the people who entered into Itil banks was a mixture of Huns (Onugrs) and Megyers having a strong Danube Bulgarian roots? To this please add also influence of Komi, Komi-Permjakki, Udmurt, Mari, Erzja, Metserä,and Muromi peoples. The traders have remarcable habit to mix with each other. Itil Bolharia was one of the main trading centers of its time on the area. Where are Imens and Burtas? The Itil Bolghars seems to be one people among others who lived also in the area. Later forming the ruling class under Itiläbär / Kaani / Eteläpääri. Then the Chuvass people who seems to be of origin Bolghars, but spoked a mixture of one ancient Finno Ugrian language and old Bolghar language and were mixed with Maris. There lived also Kozaris and Boshkortis, Russian refuges and Jews, Arabs and Tatars. Balts, Liivis, Kuuris, Korelois, Vesis and Vadjas. And of course Khazaris. It was not totally ethnically a Bolghar Khaganate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
THE ONOGURS WERE NOT HUNS - TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT SHOWS THAT YOU KNOW LITTLE HISTORY - THE ONOGURS WERE BULGARS. THE BULGARS NEVER HAD ANY GENETIC CONNECTION WITH THE HUNS (THE HUNS BY THE WAY ARE NOT EVEN PROVEN TURKIC, EVERYONE JUST ASSUMES EVERY TRIBE IN THE WORLD TO BE TURKIC), THE BULGARS JOINED THE HUN RAIDS A COUPLE OF HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EARLIEST KNOW BULGAR STATE - THE KINGDOM OF BALHARA, AND THEY VOLUNTEERED FOR THE HUN RAIDS - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE SUBJUGATED BY THE HUNS 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The flag in the article seems to be a mix of the flag of Kazan Khanate and the modern flag of Tatarstan. I'm taking it away until someone provides a reliable source for the image. SuvarS (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)