|Volga River has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Russia / Physical geography||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Rivers||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Previous name
- 2 Cognates in Baltic languages?
- 3 The Volga In Stalingrad
- 4 Map
- 5 Catherine and the Germans
- 6 Volga
- 7 volume?
- 8 length?
- 9 Some additions
- 10 Environmental health of the Volga river
- 11 mother
- 12 Location
- 13 Cruiseship tragedy, "Bulgaria" sinking
- 14 Funny historical point
- 15 Why "Volga River"?
- 16 Bend toward Don
- 17 Please inform why the Volga is called Volga River despite ...
- 18 External links modified
- 19 Additional information about Volga Length
- 20 European length and Asian length
- 21 Navigation
The Volga was also once called the Rha in anc times. Trekphiler 04:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Cognates in Baltic languages?
'Rasa' in Lithuanian language means a dew and 'Vilga' means to moisten or to damp...and 'Rusenti, Rusne' means to flow (like Baltic tribe 'Prussians' comes from 'Parusne, prusne' and even a word to bath 'prausti' comes from this root). It's obvious that both Lithuania and Rus or Russia mean the people who lives on the banks of rivers ('Lietuva' directly means the river's channel and 'lietis' means to flow or to pour, and 'lietus' means the rain)
The Volga In Stalingrad
More information and pictures added about the volga's part in wwii. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC) pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo therenis pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
No map? Lotsofissues 01:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, this definitely needs a map Fuzzbox 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Catherine and the Germans
The current comment about the Germans in the Volga River region implies that Catherine targeted them through her so called "invitation". In fact, the Manifesto is addressed to all foreigners. I have modified that sentence to reflect this.
Jerry Frank 184.108.40.206 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Volga is not wet, neither it is ancient sanskrit. Volga = Valge , means white river in finnic languages. Compare Moskva = black river in finnic.
- You are wrong. The Volga river name has Baltic origin as majority Russia's western toponyms, Latvian valga 'moist, humid', the Baltic word ir borrowed into Finnic languages. The Moscow city name is also Baltic word, Latvian Maskava/Mazgava from mazgāt 'to wash' - the river, where to bathe and wash clothes. The river Oka - Latvian aka 'well', the river Yauza - Latvian auza 'oat', etc. Roberts7 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC); —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs)
- It original research, definitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- well, not likely - let's cite the Moscow river etymology excerpt from russian version about Moscow river(note: in russian it pronounces maskva and not moskou - ancient baltic people did not had vocals for o or ou - they had ua, that in latvian is written as o):
- В последние десятилетия особенно популярна гипотеза В. Н. Топорова, который возводит имя Москвы к древним балтийским формам *Mask-(u)va, *Mask-ava или *Mazg-(u)va, *Mazg-ava от корней со значениями либо «топь», либо «извилистая (река)».
- It original research, definitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Этой гипотезе не противоречит и объяснение имени Москвы от родственного балтийским славянского слова москы, связанного с понятием «влага»; значение гидронима так или иначе устанавливается как «топкая, болотистая, мокрая (река)». Возможно, что нарицательное слово, лежащее в основе гидронима Москвы, относилось к лексике, возникшей в ранний период интенсивного балто-славянского языкового взаимодействия.
- Highly unlikelly that core baltic territories(look for baltic cultures map in that area in russian) had anything to do with finno-ugric influences on river names. Even in Finland most ancient names come from baltic - like it is with Saimaa lake or some other names, that are not finnish and predates them.
- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
2194 or 2294? seen both
I checked also the Imperial Russia statistics from 1913 and Volga is there under the title WATERWAYS AND CANALS described in details.
Lenght 3.463 versts (3.695 km) of which lenght for floating (upper course) 114 versts (121.7 km), for shipping 3.349 versts (3.373.4 km), and for steamships 3.048 versts (3252.2 km). Volga basin: general lenght of rivers, lakes, and canals serving as ways of communications: Volga 76.883 versts (82.034 km) of which navigable 16.658 versts (17.774 km), lenght navigable on rafts 38.194 versts (40.753 km), navigable for steamers 13.405 versts (14.303 km).
Now lenght is now given as 3694 km (2295.85 miles) from its spring located near old village church of Volgoverhovje in Valdai hills to its main source´s mouth at Caspian Sea.
Flows to Lake Sterzh which forms with Lake Vselug and Lake Peno 206 metre a.s.l. the upper part of Volga water reservoir above the Peno settlement where Velikije Luki - Bologoje railway line crosses Volga by railway bridge. The lower Volga water reservoir continues to Selishtshe dam. Below the Selishtshe dam at Skakulino Soblago - Torzhok railway line crosses Volga in railway bridge. At Selizharevo River Selizharovka from Lake Seliger is the first notable tributary. Near Mihalevo village stream surface is 184 metre a.s.l. little more down stream near Petrushtshevo village the surface is 176 metre a.s.l. Just down of the confluence of its tributary Tudovka River on the rapid the surface is 170 metre a.s.l. Volga flows through the first notable town Rzhev where the third railway line, the Lihoslavl - Rzhev - Vjazma railway crosses Volga in railway bridge. Below Staritsa near Matjukovo village the surfage is 133 metre a.s.l. Nera Novokurovo village is the first anchorage place where the surface is 128 metre a.s.l. Next anchorage place is Besjedy where the surface is 125 metre a.s.l. Above Tver there are anchogage places at Putulovo, Datshnyj and Krasnovo. At Tver the St. Petersburg - Moscow main railway line crosses Volga in railway bridge. From the north in the centre of Tver important tributary River Tversta have its confluence with Volga. Just below Tver at Pasynkovo river harbour the surface is 124 metre a.s.l. Usually this point is given as the most northern navigable point at Volga (for Ocean going merchant vehicles). The Ivanov water reservoir, 124 metre a.s.l. starts from Gorodnja anchorage place and continues to Dubna dam. This was formely known as Moscow Inland Sea. The Volga - Moscow Canal starts from Dubna. Down of Dubna the surface is 113 metre a.s.l. to Uglitsh dam and forms Uglitsh water reservoir.
All these places have also earlier Karelian names and to this point Volga was known as Valgia (White) River. In Tver (Tihvi > Tihveri > Tjhverj > Tver) Oblast Valgia streams through former lands of Valdai Karelians, Rzhev ( Wild Forest Karelians) and Tver Karelians who settled these areas before the Slavic immigration from the Ilmajärvi (Ilmen Lake) direction.
Volga River Steamers
Formerly tens of thousands of burlaki, or Volga boatmen, were employed in dragging boats up the Volga and its tributaries, but this method of traction has disappeared unless from a few of the tributaries. Horses are still extensively used along the three canal systems . The first steamer "Volga" visited to Samara in 1846. In 1858, the Nizhny Novgorod Machine Factory produced the first Russian steam dredger. The amount of suspended matter brought down by erosion is correspondingly great . All along its course the Volga is eroding and destroying its banks with great rapidity; towns and loading ports have constantly to be shifted farther back .
The first large steamers of the American type were built in 1872 . Thousands of steamers are now employed in the traffic, to say nothing of smaller boats and rafts . Many of the steamers use as fuel mazut or petroleum refuse . Large numbers of the boats and rafts are broken up after a single voyage . In 1870, the first Russian open hearth furnace was built Nizhny Novagrad at the factory, followed by a two-decked steamship Perevorot just a year later. In 1913, it produced a dry bulk cargo ship Danilikha. The factory built 489 ships between 1849 and 1918.
The largest fleet of any of Soviet rivers is that on the Volga, where in 1926 there were 1604 steamers with indicated horse power of 300595.The Internal Waterways Steamship Co. had at its disposal on January 1, 1927, 2,020 steamers The Batashevs’ «steamers» were on a par with the world-famous ones produced by Berdov, and were installed on the majority of Volga steamships.
In 1913 the Romanovs boarded the steamer Mezhen at Nizhniy Novgorod to sail down the Volga river for their 500th Anniversary tour.
Other steamers were the 'Lastochka' or swallow. Maxim Gorky, the writer, worked as a cook on a Volga steamer in his youth and thus the Volga river enters Russian literature: stories where A young officer encounters a beautiful stranger on board a Volga steamer.
During the Seige of Leningrad, one indomitable tug crossed the river towing barges of men, food and ammunition, constantly under the the fire of the German guns. The tug made many journeys until it was too damaged to continue. In the post=war years, new steamers of the Josef Stalin type were built and worked the river. A few survive. Today, the river is worked by diesel cruise boats and tugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Environmental health of the Volga river
What? nothing about the current health of the river? Nothing is known? sewage? Fish? Industry? No known controversy on pollution?
the river is sometimes referred to as "mother Volga" you should make it so that this article to appear in the search when someone tired to search for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Because that's where it is? See borders of the continents#Europe and Asia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 20, 2011; 14:06 (UTC)
Cruiseship tragedy, "Bulgaria" sinking
hopefully someone will add in a section involving the sinking of the "Bulgaria". Current estimates are 120 dead and 2 missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Funny historical point
"The downstream of the Volga, widely believed to have been a cradle of the Proto-Indo-European civilization, was settled by Huns and other Turkic peoples in the first millennium AD,"
Can we be not be a bit more precise than to within a thousand years? If there are no sources fine, but I just thought this was funny as it's spans such a vast period of time. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Why "Volga River"?
On the face of it, that seems to go against WP:CN, which would argue for either "the Volga" or "the River Volga". Is there some key prevalence or significance to the current form that argues for it? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- All three variants ("Volga River", "River Volga", and "Volga") are equally correct and none is better than another. One variant may be picked over another based either on local English dialect preference (hence all rivers in the UK are in the "River X" format and all rivers in the US are in "X River" format) or, for countries where English is not the first language, by the prevalent convention that is already used for the majority of the articles. For Russia in particular, the majority of river articles are already named using the "X River" scheme, and since mass-moving them to a variant which is neither better nor worse than the existing one would be a waste of everyone's time and rather disruptive, it is not usually done. Such mass moves are only performed when the variant used can be shown to be inaccurate, which is not the case here. Nor is there a compelling reason to single out the Volga, making it the sole exception from the established convention, especially considering that both Volga and River Volga already redirect here (as they should). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 6, 2014; 19:03 (UTC)
Bend toward Don
The article says the Volga bends towards the Don near Volgograd. However, looking at a map it seems the both bend away from each other near that point. Am I missing something? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please inform why the Volga is called Volga River despite ...
According to WP:NCRIVER (River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage), WP:NCGN (The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name), and WP:PTOPIC this article should be named Volga. Further, the original/native name does not include the meaning of River in its name, as it is the case almost always for European languages (Rhine, Rhone, Danube, Elbe and so forth; see also: List of rivers of Europe#Longest rivers).
- Since there is no reaction, I assume there is no objection. Besides, on List of European rivers with alternative names#V, as on many other lists/occasions, you find the preference for Volga. No surprise. Therefore I will move Volga River to Volga. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- It basically boils down to the consistency in naming of the articles (within a country). "X River" is a valid naming scheme, just as "X" and "River X" are. Titles of the majority of articles on the rivers in Russia are standardized using the "X River" convention; there is no compelling reason for the Volga to deviate from it. One could, of course, propose the renaming of all Russian rivers to follow the "X"/"X (river)" scheme, but that would be a lot of busy work with no discernible benefits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2016; 15:09 (UTC)
- Basically, a wrong convention is still a wrong implementation; just as a result of ignorance by foreign (here: English!) speakers. Additionally, so far nobody could yet point to a defined local (Russian) policy. Nevertheless, a wrong policy should always be corrected. It is not about work load (rather small), but about accuracy! Finally, wikipedia wants to be a encyclopedia!! (missing accuracy profoundly contradicts to this wish/goal!) -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- No objection from me. Most of the European rivers had a mass renaming from X River to X to match common usage, but that renaming project seems not to have reached most of the Russian rivers. Kmusser (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- If such a mass renaming (which, if you ask me, is an enormous waste of time with no clear benefits and tons of disruption) is to be proposed, it should be done at WT:RIVER and WT:RUSSIA. Picking a random article and moving it is not a good way to start this process. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2016; 15:35 (UTC)
- Not every decision is a result of a policy. Most articles about Russian rivers were created using the "X River" convention (with which absolutely nothing is wrong, by the way) years ago, then the practice continued as more articles had been created, and those few discussions I vaguely recall taking place at WT:RUSSIA over the years found that no compelling reason exists to switch to a different naming scheme (this may or may not have been prior to any decisions taken by WP:RIVER, of which WP:RUSSIA had never been directly notified anyway).
- Note also that WP:NCRIVER itself states that country-specific exceptions to this rule should be discussed within WikiProject Rivers and/or that country's WikiProject, which is a clear indication that this page is the wrong starting point for the changes the proposer is seeking.
- Furthermore, to say the the "work is not really that big" is to ignore the sheer scope of the changes. Consider, for example, that not only the existing articles would be affected, but all the backlinks to them, as well as the red links. I don't even so much oppose the changes as proposed (had all Russian rivers been originally using the "X"/"X (river)" convention, that practice would have undoubtedly continued in the same way the "X River" convention had), I oppose the sheer silliness of this busywork, in no small part because I am yet to see what the tangible benefits are going to be. There are hundreds upon hundreds of articles yet to be written about the rivers in Russia, yet for the next several years WP:RUSSIA is expected to be cleaning up the mess this change is going to create instead? Thanks, but no, thanks. Plan this accordingly, jump through all the bureaucratic hoops we have, do the test bot runs, then start moving stuff. Don't try to cut corners at someone else's expense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2016; 18:23 (UTC)
- That conservation already took place in WT:RIVER (primarily in archive 2) and there was a consensus to move articles to X rather than X River for countries where that was the common usage and there was a mass renaming of European river as a result, most of the work done by Markussep (I'm assuming with bot assistance). Russia got left out of that change, but that was probably an oversight rather than intentional. I agree that bringing it up again in WT:RIVER is a good idea as if you're going to change this one it makes sense to change them all, and if you're going to do that you'll want help. Kmusser (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know either if omitting Russia was an oversight or intentional, but I know that WP:RUSSIA had never been notified of this proposal nor had a chance to have any say in it. If both WP:RIVER and WP:RUSSIA are involved, a clear proposal is made, a plan to implement the changes is created, tests are run, questions are answered, and an obvious commitment by someone to see the project through can be seen, then, and only then, I don't see much harm in following through with this proposal (although, to be fair, I don't see a benefit either, apart from the ephemeral "consistency", which in case of rivers does not exist anyway). What I do oppose is picking a random article (even one that's about a major Russian river) and starting to move stuff around without soliciting any outside input. Even today's move, before it got reverted, should have been to "Volga", not to "Volga (river)", and I see no attempts of doing any kind of cleanup following such a major move. If that's the level of quality we should expect, then pardon me for not being a fan of the whole proposal!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2016; 19:01 (UTC)
- I can't find the naming discussion in the archive of WT:RIVERS, but I have found the 2008 discussion here and the 2005 discussion here. I think it's a good idea to discuss country specific river naming in a central location like WT:RIVERS, and to announce those discussions at the specific country wikiproject pages (like WT:RUSSIA). Markussep Talk 09:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Volga River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109123915/http://www.noordersoft.com/indexen.html to http://www.noordersoft.com/indexen.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Additional information about Volga Length
According to measurements made using google earth by myself both published lengths of 3.530 and 3.692 kilometres are incorrect. Volga river length as measured by myself is 3.399 kilometers* from its source (which i put at 57°15'04.98"N/32°28'04.88"E (next to the area Volgoverkhov'ye), based on google maps and google earth) to its estuary (which i put at 45°41'51.42"N/47°53'41.16"E, based on google maps and google earth). The total length of the main branches/distributaries (that weren't taken into account for the measurement of the total length) of Volga river, which were chosen by manual decision based on each distributary's relative width, is 103 kilometers. So if we add the two lengths the result is 3.502 kilometers, closer to 3.530 kilometers. In addition, measuring from its estuary, the length to Rybinsk Reservoir is around (from near memory) 2.600 kilometers*, to lake Volgo 3.297 kilometres*, to lake Peno 3.331(part 1)-3.342(part 2) kilometres*, to lake Vselug 3.354 kilometres*, to lake Sterzh 3.375 kilometres*, to lake Bol'shiye Verkhity 3.391 kilometres*, to lake Malye Verkhity 3.395 kilometres*. Finally, the map of the Volga watershed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_River is incorrect because it shows Volga's source to be at Volgo lake.
- Measurement methodology: All measurements are approximate but the gap between the published numbers is too big. Measurement of main Volga river (without distributaries) length was made with a continuous axial line (randomly placed within the boundaries of the river's width), by measuring only one branch length whenever there were more than one. The length of Volga is even lower, if the part of the river that passes through lakes is subtracted.
European length and Asian length
The article currently says "This infrastructure has been designed for vessels of a relatively large scale (lock dimensions of 290 by 30 metres (951 ft × 98 ft)"
Hmmm presumably the locks are 290 metres long, and 30 meters wide -- but how deep are they? Those locks are about as long as those on the St Lawrence Seaway, and about as long as those on the Yangtze. A decade or so ago Chinese chauvinists were describing the Yangtze locks as among the largest in the world, but they were less than half the depth of the Seaway locks. Mississipi locks are also only about three or four metres.
In addition, reading between the lines, I gather all the rapids, waterfalls, or just plain shallow sections of the river have been eliminated, by damming. But surely the river once had navigational hazards?
I have worked on the Mackenzie River, navigable from its source, Great Slave Lake, to its mouth, it does have the Sans Sault Rapids and The Ramparts (Mackenzie River). Surely there were similar impediments on the Volga?
The map of the drainage basin shows a very narrow neck, north of Volgograd/Stalingrad. That suggests the river itself narrowed, and may have dropped significant elevation. Geo Swan (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)