Talk:Byzantine–Bulgarian wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Whoever wrote this article has only vague knowledge on the subject. To say that the Bulgarians "usually lost" from the time of Asparukh's reign to that of khan Krum is ridiculous and I encourage the author to read up on the victories of khan Tervel over Justinian II, and the battles fought by khan Kardam. The Byzantine emperor Constantine V was the only emperor to claim any significant millitary successes, and those never resulted in territorial gains. I don't have time to revise the whole article, but do encourage if you ever want to write something in Wikipedia to at least put in the effort to read up on the subject that you are presenting.

Constantine V the only emperor to lead successful military campaign against the Bulgarians? What about the Macedonian dynasty? "Basil the Bulgar-Slayer"? Forget that one? 68.81.84.122 23:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Bungus

My objection was to the time between Asparukh and Krum ('bout 100 years), during which yes - Constantine V was in fact the only one to actually win a battle. So two options - 1.)I was misunderstood, 2.) You have no idea when Basil II actually reigned.

Sorry, I got that particular bit of information from the 1997 Encyclopedia Britannica, in the article in the Macropedia on the Balkans. I guess that shows that they make mistakes, too. Maybe they should go wiki.Crispus 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Bulgarians in Edessa?

Bulgarian army conquering Edessa and killing its governor

No this picture caption is very wrong, the image itself says Thessalonika. The author should have seen that one.Tourskin 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry again, saw my mistake.Tourskin 20:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to note I made a grammatical change in the paragraph about Tervel: "Tervel took advantage of the disorders in Byzantium to raided Thrace in 712, plundering as far as the vicinity of Constantinople." Disorders should be disorder(or simply chaos), and raided, raid.KVND 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talk • contribs)

Also, I have left this in, but.."If Tervel had survived this long, he would have been the Bulgarian ruler who concluded a new treaty (confirming the annual tribute paid by the Byzantines to Bulgaria, the territorial concessions in Thrace, regulating commercial relations and the treating of political refugees)... since when do we speculate about what a dead man might have done? On top of that, treaties were often cancelled before signing, ignored, or simply allowed to slowly erode more often than not in those days, making this line both out of the scope of wikipedia, and simply speculation on the authors part. I left it because I want consensus for this.KVND 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Territorial Changes

I think it be more appropriate for the territorial changes to say something like "Both sides lost and regained territory several times." The Ottoman conquests were largely unrelated to the Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars, and so the territorial changes that resulted from the Ottoman conquests can't be seen as a result of the Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars.

I think you are right. --Gligan 09:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ivan Alexander’s defence of Bulgaria"

Not a good heading, considering that most of the section talks of offensive maneuvores and the Byzantine civil war. Emanuel Shapera 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was in fact defence, because the Byzantines were invading Thrace after they betrayed Bulgaria in their alliance against the Serbs. Ivan Alexander fought aggressively and took the initiative but in that way he only defended Bulgarian Thrace.

But if you don't like that as a title, change it with something more suitable. --Gligan 09:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Philippopolis and terrritorial gains

Philippopolis was taken by the Bulgarians a number of times, including in Krum's wars, however, it never seems to have been retained by the Bulgarians for any considerable length of time. A number of Byzantine emperors settled Armenian and Paulician military settlers in the city. It was a Byzantine town in the reign of Nikephoros Phokas, as it was sacked by Svyatoslav of Kiev - had it been a Bulgarian town it would have opened its gates to him as Bulgaria had capitulated and the Bulgarian royal family were in his hands.

In most books the capture of various Thracian towns by the Bulgarians is noted but their subsequent return to Byzantine rule by treaty at a slightly later date is not. It is thought that the Bulgarians, who largely used a 'render in kind' and barter economy (Bulgaria was exempted from taxes in coin as late as the reign of Basil II), had difficulty administering towns and regions which enjoyed a full monetary economy and were usually happy to return them for a one off payment from the Byzantine treasury.

For an examination of this phenomenon see: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century by John V. A. Fine.

Urselius 13:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Plovdiv was taken during the reign of Khan Malamir (831-836) and the Bulgarians controlled the until the invasion of Knyaz Svetoslav in 969 which is more than 150 year, during which the Byzantines never approached in the vicinity of Plovdiv. Neither Plovdiv nor any city in northern and central Thrace showed any intention or willingness to join the Byzantine Empire in that period, and the Bulgarian did not had difficulties in administrating these regions. The only major Thracian town which was often captured by the Bulgarians but soon afterwards returned to the Byzantines was Odrin and I think it is mentioned everywhere that its capture was temporary. --Gligan 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Krum certainly conquered and retained control of Philippopolis, and many other Thacian towns, but these were returned to Byzantium by his successor Omurtag. Malamir and the Kavkhan Isbul took Philippi, probably in 836, west of the Mesta River in Macedonia, not Philippopolis in Thrace. Macedonia west of the Vardar seems to have fallen under Bulgar control from 846, certainly the area as far west as Ohrid was controlled by Tsar Boris. The only recorded 'permanent' Bulgar gains in Thrace was the region of Zagora, just south of the Balkan mountains between Sider and Develtus, by treaty, in 863. If Philippopolis was Bulgarian, why did Svyatoslav plunder it? The Bulgarian state had fallen under his control by this time and all the Bulgarian royal family were his prisoners. No provincial governor would hold out alone when his government and sovereign had already capitulated.

Urselius (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the provincial governors of the western parts of Bulgaria did not capitulate after the capture of the Emperor and the fall of the capital, so it is possible that the governor of Plovdiv may have followed their example (of comita Nikola and his sons). But according to me the Byzantines used the difficulties which the Bulgarians faced against Svetoslav and might have seized the city and the surrounding area. And even if that didn't happen, it is still possible that Svetoslav might plunder Bulgarian territory because that was the way that the armies were supplied with food in the Middle Ages.

In fact in 970 (just before the fall of Preslav) the Asian army of Byzantium was defeated by the Bulgarians in the outskirts of Plovdiv (see the article for Samuil). That might mean that either the Byzantines had taken the city and were immediately defeated after that or they were defeated before even reaching Plovdiv. In both cases the city was lost for Bulgaria in 970-971 during that raid or during the campaign of Tzimisces.--Gligan (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of quotes:

Haldon, John, Warfare State and Society in the Byzantine World 565-1204 UCL press (1999). p.177.

" ... from the mid-790s Byzantine efforts also succeeded in stabilizing a Balkan frontier between the empire and the Bulgars, represented by a line of fortified posts (Philippoupolis, Beroea, Markellai and Anchialos), from which local officers could respond to threats independent of their strategos or Constantinople."

Fine, John, The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, University of Michigan Press (1991). p. 186.

"The only place that Svjatoslav met resistance was at Philippopolis, a Byzantine city south of the Balkan mountains in Thrace and a center of the Paulicians. When it fell Leo the Deacon, probably with exaggeration, states that Svjatoslav impaled twenty thousand people."

Many of the fortified towns on the Thracian frontier of Byzantium seem to have remained outside the formal theme system for a very long time which tends to mask their continued existence as Byzantine outposts.

Urselius (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Before 681

I think a significant chapter, that this article is/would be missing, is one dealing with the wars between Byzantium and the Bulgarians (Bulgars) before the creation of the Bulgarian state on the Danube in 681. The Bulgars were an almost constant menace to the Empire's Balkan frontiers during the 6th century. There is an excellent online source - John Bagnall Bury: History of the Later Roman Empire. Bulgarian readers could look into Zlatarski, History of the Bulgarian State in the Middle Ages, Vol. I, Part I. Dobrin (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of English or transliterated names

I think this article needs to have a policy on naming.

Where an English version of a name exists, and it is widely used in English language texts, this should be used. Thus both Symeon and Samuel exist as names in the English language, therefore these forms should be used in preference to Semyon (or similar) or Samuil. Svyatoslav and Omurtag, on the other hand, which do not have an English equivalent are fine as they stand.Urselius (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

bulgarians

it's bulgars not bulgarians. bulgarians are the citizens of the newly found modern state of bulgaria.79.126.246.77 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In scholarship the term Bulgar is usually restricted to the Turkic Bulgars, the people resulting from the melding of the Slav tribes and their Bulgar overlords are termed Bulgarians. For convenience this change in nomenclature is often pegged onto the conversion of the Bulgarians to Christianity. As an added complexity the state of the Danubian Bulgars is often termed Bulgaria from its inception, partly to distinguish it from the Khaganate of the Volga Bulgars. Urselius (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

if you open an article Second Bulgarian Empire on bulgarian language is written: Второ българско царство, not: Второ българијанско царство. so that means that the Bulgarians were referring to themselves as "Bulgars".79.126.246.77 (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about scholarship in the English language, I have no idea what terminology is used in Bulgarian. Urselius (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

i will spell it on english: vtoro blgarsko tzarstvo, not vtoro bulgariyansko tzarstvo.79.126.246.77 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this is the English, not the Bulgarian Wikipedia, what you say is simply wrong: "Bulgarian" in Bulgarian is "български" ("blgarski"), not "българијански" ("blgariyanski"). "Bulgar Khanate", "Bulgars" etc can be used for the first two hundred years of the Bulgarian state, when the fusion between the Turkic Bulgars and the local Slavic and pre-Slavic populations had not yet been completed. But after ca. 860, the common term in English scholarship is "Bulgarian". Constantine ✍ 18:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

yes, i know it's english, so you should clear up the terms and names. knowing that the bulgars were assimilated by the local indigenous slavic population, not fusioned or slavicized, means that there are no bulgarians. it's bulgars or slavs. it cannot be both. they were just the rulling class or house or whatever. by using these wrong terms the mist in the history just gets bigger. so what if it's official historians term? it cannot be changed?79.126.203.192 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

it's like calling the British people "Frenchians" or "Vikingians".79.126.203.192 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to think whatever you like. However, Wikipedia content on any subject is, and has to be, based on the concensus in the published literature. Therefore the treatment of the terms "Bulgar" and "Bulgarian" will remain as it is. Urselius (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah right, i didn't expect any other scientific answer. the latins didn't fight bulgarians, they fought slavs or veneti who had turkic rulers. check out florin curta. tnx 4 your time.79.126.213.85 (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a copy of Curta. The Second Bulgarian Empire had a great deal of Vlach and Cuman involvement, should we call the people of this empire "Vlach-cuman-slavo-bulgars", or "Bulgarians"? Reductio ad absurdam but in line with your reasoning. Urselius (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

they had more involvement than bulgars, that's for sure. it was just a house or ruling dynasty of some khans and that's about all you will find bulgarian in bulgaria.79.126.246.111 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we disregard the ridiculous claims coming from FYROM. As it is well known that the people there have been brainwashed for decades with political propaganda, up to the point that their so called "history" is entirely based either on fairy tales or communist manipulation. It is a country suffering from a serious identity crisis which often forces its citizens to try and export some of the pseudohistory they've been taught on the international scene as it is well displayed by the comment above.--Avidius (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that WP:DNFTT applies here. Constantine ✍ 07:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Overlong section

"Sviatoslav's invasion and the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria" is too long, both as a lump of text and as a period of time. The period described in this section is over 40 years, more than a generation. I propose that it should be split into something resembling this: 'Sviatoslav's invasion and the conquests of John I Tzimiskes', 'Tsar Samuel', and the 'Conquest of Bulgaria by Basil II'. Urselius (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned that as I was about to split it up last night. Thanks for the suggested outline. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Samuel/Samuil transliteration and usage

As I have said earlier on this page an article on the English Language Wikipedia needs to relflect usage in English language scholarship. I know that the transliteration of the Bulgarian Cyrillic name is Samuil, however, I have not come across a book on the subject in English which uses this form - all use the standard English form of this Biblical name - Samuel. This applies to most names in foreign languages that have well known English language versions differing from their original pronunciation or spelling, thus we don't have Kikero (Cicero), or Iulius Kaisar (Julius Caesar), or indeed Vasilios (Basil) or Mavrikios (Maurice). In the present context Samuil looks particularly out of place next to the Biblical names of his brothers - David, Moses etc. in their English forms. Also the form Samuil will cause the reader coming from an English language background some confusion - is Samuil the same as Tsar Samuel, or is it a different man? I know that I was confused initially, and I have been interested in Byzantine History since 1980, and am well read in the field. Urselius (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)