Talk:History of Bulgaria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Bulgaria 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!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for History of Bulgaria: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] WWII Missing

Bulgaria's experience in WW2 is missing.

[edit] Series

Try breaking this into a series, like History of Germany. --Jiang 16:38, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It's got quite enough content to become a series, the only question is whether to split each existing section into its own article or group some together. --Joy [shallot] 11:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New article

I know this is very arrogant of me, but I'm afraid the old article was such a horrible mess that I couldn't stand looking at it any more. It was much easier to write a new one than try to rescue the old one. It's also a very educational process. Adam 15:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I presume the anonymous editor who has been making changes to this article today is a Bulgarian. My message to him or her is:

  • Please become a registered User
  • Please allow people to correct your English spelling and grammar, which are not very good.
  • Please don't add great slabs of detail to the article. There is a difference between an encyclopaedia article and A History of Everything That Has Ever Happened in Bulgaria.

Adam 06:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree he shouldn't have edited over my grammar/spelling fixes, but I don't see how the article can be harmed by more detail. We can always break things off into subarticles if need be. Everyking 11:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous user, feel free to add back your contributions, just be careful not to edit over any corrections a person might've made while you were writing. I don't know why Adam objects to having more detail in the article; Wikipedia policy is generally very inclusive when it comes to detail. But please don't vandalize this talk page. Everyking 00:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I guess Adam has some problems with certain facts of the history of the medieval world. Probably he should educate himself better.

I didn`t appreciate that he deleted my contribution to the common knowlegde, especially having in mind that I sacrified my free time to Wikipedia. I never expected this response.

P.S. My name is Kurt Oberholtzer. I am not Anonyous anymore. Greetings!

[edit] Kurt Oberholtzer

Adam, please check in the refference when was the Romanian nation created (hint - after 18th century) and then think twice before naming the Vlachs in 13th cetury Romanians. I shall gladly give you more lessons in medieval history.

Mr Oberholtzer I will be happy to discuss Bulgarian, Romanian or any other history with you when you drop this sneering and abusive tone towards other editors. Adam 03:03, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, the Protobulgarians believed in only one god, Tangra. Evidently, you confuse them with the Slavs, who were indeed polytheists. 213.240.199.186

Well, I can't fall back on my own knowledge of the subject or anything, but it said polytheistic before, and I looked it up and found lots of references to their polytheism before conversion. Everyking 12:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tangra was Bulgars' sole god only if we assume that Bulgars were a Turkic people. Have we got any written evidence which connects Bulgars with Tangra? I.e., how do we know Tangra was Bulgars' god? --webkid 14:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Secon Bulgar Empire - Vlach nobles

  • i'd like to correct the Ivan Asen with John Asen - i'm curious, was his original name (documents/papers/chronicles/seals/etc.) Ioan Asen, or Ivan Asen ?
  • In 1185 a leading Vlach noble, Peter Asen, led a Bulgarian revolt against Byzantine rule and declared himself Tsar Peter II (also known as Theodore Peter) - i'd like to know, was Peter Asen a "noble" or just a vlach leader, did he led a "bulgarian revolt" or was it a "revolt of the vlachs and bulgars", was his title Tsar or Dux/Basileus/Rex/etc. ?

i'm asking all this because i am a romanian and i have a different view on this info. with all due respect for the bulgars Criztu 22:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are good reasons to link the Asens to the Ashina dynasty whose scions were called to rule a number of countries in Asia and Eastern Europe. --Vladko 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What are those "good reasons"? That dynasty lived 700 years before the Asens. bogdan 15:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References?

As the edit template says:

Doesn't this article need some decent references? Many encyclopedias are hit-or-miss for accuracy. Personal knowledge can't be cited; it can't be checked by others, and sounds like just plain POV. I know it's hard, but I really think we need people to go back and read some respected references, list them, and adjust the article to fit better with those references. That should avoid some of these repeated reverts. -- A D Monroe III 12:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


You had better be prepared to back that allegation up with some evidence. Adam 01:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to lift a finger. The article itself is the evidence. Decius 01:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your refusal to justify your slanders is noted. Adam 03:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda is a type of message presentation aimed at serving a particular agenda. This article does indeed fit the definition of propaganda. A sizable part of it is written by Bulgarians, so it does in fact fit the definition of Bulgarian propaganda (cheap Bulgarian propaganda, because it is transparent). It embodies fictional elements, so it can be classed as Fiction. Decius 03:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The article was almost entirely written by me. I am not Bulgarian.
  • If everything written by a Bulgarian is Bulgarian propaganda, it must follow that everything written by you is Romanian propaganda, yes?
  • If you think anything in the article is incorrect, you are free to edit it, or to say so here, rather than to slander other contributors in this way. Adam 03:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I looked through the History files. You did indeed write much of the article, but a vast number of contributors, including a number of Bulgarians, added to it and subtracted from it.
That is not correct. I wrote nearly all of it. I do not ask the nationality of people making edits, but if anyone has added Bulgarian propaganda to the article, I and others will have removed it. The same attitide will be taken to Romanian propaganda - or Zulu propaganda for that matter. Adam 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that everything written by a Bulgarian is propaganda, I said that the article includes Bulgarian propaganda.
Yes you did. You said: "A sizable part of it is written by Bulgarians, so it does in fact fit the definition of Bulgarian propaganda." Adam 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It depends on what I was referring to when I said "it": "it" meaning the article, or "it" meaning the propaganda: "A sizable part of it (the propaganda) was written by Bulgarians, so it (the propaganda) does indeed fit the definition of Bulgarian propaganda." Propaganda applies not only to what was written, but also to what was purposefully erased. Decius 04:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I was just about to do that. Decius 04:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I await your edits with interest. Adam 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For anybody that wants to read more, the question of Peter Asen's Vlach ethnicity is debated here: Talk: Kingdom of Bulgarians and Vlachs. Also, discussed here: Asen dynasty and here Kaloyan/Talk:Kaloyan. Decius 05:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So is that what this is all about? One minor edit on whether some obscure character from the Middle Ages was or was not part-Vlach is hardly worth all the abuse you have heaped on the author/s of this article. I don't care whether Peter Asen was a Vlach or a Hottentot, and I doubt anyone else does either.

I don't give a damn what you care about, or who originally wrote the article, and it's about more than that. This is not about you, it is about the historical neutrality of the article, and it is about the history of Bulgaria. If someone engages to write such an article, they must be concerned with all the aspects that come under consideration. Not just part-Vlach, he may have been all Vlach going back a generation and partly Vlach going back more. Decius 07:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Brief History

16:44, the 16th of December, 2004, user:Criztu (a Romanian contributor) changes this sentence: "In 1185, a leading Vlach noble, Peter Asen, led a Bulgarian revolt against Byzantine rule..." to "In 1185, a leader of the Vlachs, Peter Asen, led a revolt against Byzantine rule...", and Criztu also changes the Ivan to John (Ioan). 17:23, 16th of December, 2004, user:VMORO (a Bulgarian contributor) is deeply upset by this and writes in his edit-summary "If you don't leave this article alone now, there will be 'sudden' burts of vandalism against Romanian articles, this is final warning", and Vmoro changes the sentence: "In 1185, a leading Vlach-Bulgarian noble, Peter Asen, led a revolt...". On the 31st of December, 2004, at 15:36, an "anonymous" contributor (82.119.76.36) then finally got up the courage and wrote "In 1185, a leading noble of mixed, Cuman-Bulgarian origin, led a revolt..." and any mention of the Vlach element of his ethnicity suddenly and mysteriously disappears from the article, no reason given by this "anonymous" contributor. Of course, this violates NPOV standards, because actual historians (and not just anonymous Wikipedia contributors) and scholars affirm (though of course, others disagree, so it is a disputed issue and both sides must be represented) the Vlach ethnicity of Peter Asen, and of his Dynasty. Decius 07:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I wrote the original sentence, saying that Asen was a Vlach, so you owe me an apology for a start. Secondly, petty Balkan nationalists of all kinds should all go and take a cold shower and stop threatening each other. Adam 07:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't owe you an apology because I never accused you personally of anything, it was you who took my criticism of the article personally: it was not a criticism of the writing style, it was a criticism of the neutrality, of the facts, and was aimed at contributors such as Vmoro (but I wasn't sure who else was involved, or exactly who wrote what) and others like him. Decius 07:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "The parties responsible for this article have no desire to cite references, because they have no desire to write History. They are writing Fiction (cheap Pulp magazine fiction) and Propaganda (cheap Bulgarian propaganda)." As the party principally responsible for this article, and as a historian, I am entitled to object to that kind of slander, particularly when it turns out your objections are in fact only about one minor point. Adam 07:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you are right about that, and an Apology is due: so I apologize about implying that you were involved in the biased edits. I'll even erase that comment. Decius 07:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whatever Vmoro or any other Wikipedia contributor has to say about the Vlachness of Peter Asen is irrelevant, because Vmoro is not in a position to supercede the statements and views of actual historians on the matter. The Vlachness of Peter Asen and his dynasty is disputed, yes, but it must be mentioned if his ethnicity is to be discussed at all. Decius 07:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adam wrote: "a leading Vlach noble"; for some reason, Criztu changed it "a leader of the Vlachs"; then Vmoro changed it on Dec 16th to "a leading Vlach-Bulgarian noble"; then Anonymous changed it on Dec 31st to: "a leading noble of mixed, Cuman-Bulgarian origin"; it is obvious that Anonymous was Vmoro, who became Anonymous so he wouldn't contradict himself, having earlier himself wrote "a leading Vlach-Bulgarian noble". And it is obvious that this is only one Point Of View. Decius 07:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think noble can't aply to the vlach leaders that led that revolt. for a person to be called noble, i think it takes more than "leadership of a revolt" -- Criztu 13:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Decius, I would first advise you to change your attitude and be careful of the language you use. The article in its original version was NOT written by Bulgarians and whether you like it or not, the state founded by Peter and Asen IS regarded internationally as the "Second Bulgarian Empire", not as some Vlach tra-la-la kingdom. What I can see here is the same Great-Romanian attitude demonstrated in Romanian Orthodox Church with the claims for first national, first apostolic and first I-don't-know-what Romanian church (which actually became autocephalous in the 19th century). And I always use my profile when I am here, I am not even gonna comment your accusations (or more exactly ravings). VMORO 14:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)~

[edit] Again, references?

This article isn't getting better in this mode.

If we only use personal knowledge to write a article, it seems like POV to others. Worse, any question of the source seems like a personal attack. Responses to personal attacks seem like personal attacks, and so on. There's no resolution this way.

Instead, if we find and read sources, fix the article to align with the sources, and note those sources, then it doesn't look like POV. If someone questions the references, it doesn't seem personal, nor do responses.

Of course, this is harder to do, but this is the way Wikipedia works, right? Or does someone have a different idea?

-- A D Monroe III 16:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning

I am not happy with the history of Bulgaria starting with the Proto-Bulgarians. There were other nations in those lands long before them whom Bulgarians rightly consider their forefathers, like the Thracians.--Vladko 06:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bulgaria is the nation state of the Bulgarians. Its history begins with the arrival of the Bulgarians in that territory. What happened there previously is not really relevant. If the Bulgarians consider the Thracians to be their ancestors they are wrong. Adam 06:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are not "wrong", it is indisputable that some Romanised and non-Romanised Thracian population has been assimilated by the Bulgarian Slavs. VMORO 10:59, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
i think the history of a teritory or a people begins with the first documented data about that particular teritory or people. if we have data about whomever (say romans) lived in the territory that is now known as Bulgaria, then it is worth mentioning that "in roman times, on the territory of modern Bulgaria layed the Roman provinces of Moesia and Thrace", further info about Moesia and Thrace in their respective articles. -- Criztu 11:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, that is not the same thing as saying that the Thracians were the "forefathers" of the Bulgarians. Between the time the Thracians controlled the area and the time the Bulgars arrived it had been settled successively by the Greeks, Goths, Avars and Slavs. If there were many Thracians left I'd be very surprised. Most of the population were Slavs. Adam 12:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but no one in Bulgaria claims directly they were our "forefathers". The question is whether the article should include a resume of what happened in the present-day territory of Bulgaria before the establishment of the state in 681. VMORO 22:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if any groups of Thracians speaking the Thracian language were still around in Thrace when the Slavs settled in Thrace, but I do know that it has been proven that genetic-continuity is the norm in the Balkans, so plenty of Thracian genes are present in Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and so on, and these people can rightly consider Thracians as among their forefathers (among other forefathers, etc.). It seems that genetic samples indicate that Balkan (and other European) peoples have more pre-Indo-European genes than Indo-European, so that indicates continuity despite the comings and goings of ethnic tribes over the millenia.Decius 18:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Didn't find those websites, but I was right about Procopius. Also found a map of early Slav settlements in Thrace. Decius 20:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I can fish up from my head is Niederle from the beginning of the 20th century, he thought that some non-Romanised Thracians were preserved in the mountains as late as the 9th-10th century. VMORO 22:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

First of all , the article is good enough for a non-Balkan folks to become familiar with Bulgarian History - however most of the facts in the article are just lies created by historians . I am Bulgarian that now lives in Sofia but my ancestors are from Southern Ukraine .. There is still a large Bulgarian minority there - at least 300 000 people.. Everyone is talking about how Proto-Bulgars melted in the Slavic 'sea' ... That's not right . Biology does not lie :

Bulgaria = 60% East Mediterranean, 15% Alpine, 15% Dinaric, 5% Turanid, 5% Nordish

The Slavic genes are called Neo-Danubian .. Almost no one in the Balkans has genetic similarities with Russians and Poles:

Poland = 55% Neo-Danubian, 10% Ladogan, 10% Alpine, 10% Dinaric, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Noric, 5% East Baltic = 70% Nordish (5% central and 65% periphery types)

Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine = 40% Neo-Danubian (most common in Belorussia and western Ukraine), 35% Ladogan, 8% Nordic, 7% East Mediterranean (most common near the Black Sea coast), 5% Dinaric (most common in eastern Ukraine), 5% Noric = 53% Nordish (8% central and 45% periphery types)

And let us have a look at the 'descendants' of the Thracians:

Romania = 35% Dinaric (most common in the west), 25% East Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in the northeast), 10% Alpine, 7% Noric and 3% Nordic (most common in the west) = 30% Nordish (3% central and 27% periphery types)

Romanians have only 25% East Mediterranean genes .. Bulgarians have 60% ... And Guess what East Mediterraneans ARE the local population --> Thracians, Illiryans and Greeks

We need a major revision of Balkan History but here is not the place.. Please look for similar sources but please trust anthropology,biology and genetics ... Everything that is written by a man can be a lie

PS. My source is http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html I can give you more if you want. Pafkata

Pafkata, This is a racist website and those studies are both old in method and done in order to prove a racist theory. (Kaloyan)

I will resist any attempt to contaminate this article with pseudo-scientific race theories or national mythologies such as those appearing above. Of course many different people lived in what is now Bulgaries before the Bulgars arrived, and of course their genes survive in the present Bulgarian population. That does not alter the facts I stated above: that Bulgaria is the nation-state of the Bulgarians, and that its history therefore begins with the arrival of the Bulgars. If someone wants to write the History of Moesia or the History of Thrace or the Ethno-linguistic History of the Balkans they are welcome to do so. Those topics do not belong in this article. Adam 12:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Adam, check, for example, History of England to see if the article on the country starts with the arrival of Anglo-Saxons. Or may be History of the United States starts with the arrival of the colonists??? Everyone has, of course, right to deliver their own opinion but in the case in question yours is a marginal such - and contradicts common practice, as I illustrated. VMORO 22:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the contents of those articles. If I was, I would indeed separate the History of Roman Britain from the History of England and I would put Native-American history (or pre-history) in an article separate from the History of the United States. This may be a minority view among Wikipedians, but that is because professional historians are a (small) minority among the people who write history articles at Wikipedia. I am not of course opposed to a brief section describing what happened in Bulgaria before the Bulgars arrived, but the detailed history of the Thracians etc belongs in another article (particularly since all this "history" is so encrusted in nationalist mythology as to be almost useless anyway). Adam 23:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You can see that I really like the article but I just wanted to tell you that Historians are not always right .. I am sure that you are really familiar with the Balkan history but all sources that you have read are Greek ones... I am sure that you are already brainwashed because every historian is sure that Greeks are really 'Gods' and everything that they write is TRUE and Let me ask you : If you read only Greek and Roman sources ... Do you consider yourself flooded by theirs (Greek and Roman) propaganda . Pafkata

That website is a semi-propagandic website that emphasizes the superiority of the Nordic race, and it emphasizes the high proportion of Nordish genes in Romanians, while deemphasizing Mediterranean genes in Romanians: the author of that website views mediterranean genes as inferior, and he seems to want to include Romanians more in the Nordic ("Nordish") than in the Mediterranean, which he views as less prestigious. That is not the most scientific site you could have found. Anyway, Dacians may have been more "Nordic" or "Dinaric" than Mediterranean, even judging from how they were depicted. Decius 00:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Those percentages, if correct, are actually to the advantage of Romanians: it indicates continuity in Dacia, rather than the "Romanians are from south of the Danube" theory. And I was just being nice before and backing people up: but if you really want to know the actual situation: most Thracians were already Romanized or Hellenized by the time the Slavs came, and there are only speculations to the contrary. But anyway, there should be some Thracian genes in the Bulgarian mix, as there also Thracian genes throughout that part of Europe. Decius 00:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The article though is okay as it is already concerning the early history of Bulgaria. Decius 00:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not in the least bit interested in "Nordic genes" or any other such nonsense. Nor am I under the power of Greek propaganda or any other propaganda. Adam 01:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I was commenting on the genetic claims contained in that link that User:Pafkata posted. It claims that there are more "Nordish" genes in Romanians than Medditerranean genes. Anyway, it wouldn't disturb me if there are more "nordic" than "mediterranean", or more "mediterranean" than "nordic"---in fact, I don't even think Geneticists use such classifications, so I conclude that the information provided by McCulloch in his website is crank genetics. I agree that this Wikipedia article doesn't need extensive history of Thrace: there is already a Thrace article for that. Decius 01:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Adam where you falling from, Mars ??? Bulgarian state is a sum of "pra-Bulgari" (english pre-Bulgarians), Slavs and Thracians !!! Just because before pra-Bulgari there was no state and because when becoming a state it took the name "Bulgarian" doesn't mean that Thracians doesn't have anything to do with US (Yes I'm Bulgarian), and that's what our school history books say. If Sprint, MCI and T-Mobile merge for instance and they decide that the company will be called MCI (for instance) does this mean that MCI is MCI and Sprint and T-Mobile are totally different story or articles ? [Ivan]

[edit] Remark from the main page

Remark: Instead of Empire sould be call Tzardom because: 1.As the main political doctrine of Byzantium, the EUCOMENISUM allowed only two emperors the one in Constantinople and the emperor of The Holy Roman Empire (Germany) 2.Tzar is the title of the monarch comes from Ceaser(lt)=Keiser(Germ)=Emperor=brother to the emperor in Constantinople`equal to him 3.The Russian Tzars of the House of Romanov are allowed to call themselves Emperors but at the time of Kniaz IvanIV the Terrible The Moskovian Kniazdom was the only legitimate orthodox successor of Byzanthia after 1454

_________ if you meant EUCOMENISM (I'm not very good in latin, but http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=EUCOMENISUM says no such word) then you know it's church's way to define rulers of the world, and it's a compromise with an older weak roman empire and stronger bizantium (empire) for that who can rule the (known) world. It's the same as someone with more guns than you can call himself "generalissimos".

But actually in the BIZANTIUM sources we can find "Simeon, Emperror of Bizantiums and Bulgarians", or, as its written at the moment "Emperor of both Bulgarians and Greeks" (God knows why the writer missed bulgar(ian)s ;) ) - so, as you said, only two emperrors can be - and that one in Constantinople was not an emperor at that time, am I wrong ? Actualy noone can argue that Bulgaria was an empire at least once, so this 'remark' is senseless & meaningless. for the (1.)

For your point (2.) the brother never moved from Constantinople ? ;)))) And for the point (3.) Simeon ruled about 600 years before russins had 'Tzar' ;)

83.228.1.116OhuBohu

[edit] Turkish Rule

Doesn't it seem a bit of an oxymoron to say that the sultan did not force the Christians to convert and then provide a number of instances in which it was official policy for Christians to convert to Islam? e.g. the "instances of forced mass and individual conversion" and the official policy requiring 1/5th of young male children to be taken from their homes and forced to convert and join the army. It is more than fair in light of that policy alone to say the Turkish policy was forceful conversion - or at least restate the Turkish history part to reflect that sentiment. In fact, the entire Turkish section needs to be expanded, Turkish rule remains a very sensitive point for Bulgarians, and there is more than ample evidence Turkish rule was a bit more sinister than the kind of banevalent neglect hints at.

At least a point should be made about the use of the term "Blood Tax" - that is an important part of Bulgarian history, politics, and national identity and is indivorcable from the time of Turkish rule.

- Good point... maybe somebody should start on that

[edit] WHAT THE...

OK, the Rimocatholic and Grecoorthodox churches split IN 1054. Look at the year stating in which the Bulgarians became Orthodox Christians in the article! Can anyone explain it??? Sargeras 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they "split" in the sense that they excommunicated each other in 1054, but Rome and Constantinople practiced different forms of Christianity long before the split.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Eastern+Orthodox+Church&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Eastern%20Orthodox%20churches
The word Orthodox became current at the time of the defeat (753) of iconoclasm in Constantinople.
AHands 18:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More info?

The information here is very insufficient. Personally, I added more about Khan Krum's reign-about the laws he introduced(I took it from the article on Krum). I suggest that more information be added and, subsequently, the article to be broken into series.-Deyan, Bulgaria.

I SEE THE INFORMATION THAT I ADDED WAS ERASED. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY, SINCE THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF BG HISTORY. THE PERSON WHO ERASED IT MUST BE REALLY DUMB,INDEED.-DEYAN


Dear Deyan, see what you wrote:

"Khan Krum was also known for the first Bulgarian written laws, which, in what may be the earliest example of state social policy in history, ensured subsidies to beggars and state protection to the poor of all Bulgarians. Through his laws he became known as a magnanimous ruler, bringing Slavs and Bulgars into a centralized state. Drinking, slander and robbery were severely punished under Krum, an extraordinary personality that has impressed many prominent Europeans for many centuries."

First of all these "written laws" are known just from one source - the Byzantine Lexicon Suidas, which is compilated many time after Krum's death. (You could check this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14328a.htm.) There is significant group of Historians who have doubts of existence or at least the proper essence of these laws. There aren't any Bulgarian evidences about them. Second. It is an absurdity to define these (supposed!) laws as first state social policy in the History. This stament surely reveals lack of knowledge about History... There are numerous examples about such kind of state policy in many ancient societies. Do you wish to give you more information? Third. Traditionally in the Bulgarian science the very proces of centralization is thought as connected with the rule of khan Omurtag. Fourth. Are you capable, dear Deyan, to give arguments that khan Krum really impressed many prominent Europeans for many centuries? Finally. Am I dumb? I think your ideas are not appropriate for this site. P. s. Deyan, I must say I could agree with formulation as "According to some late sources khan Krum implemented law reform intending to reduce the poverty and to strengthen the social ties in his significant enlarged state." Would you agree with this variant?

Dear Anonymous, I don't know whether you're dumb or not but you haven't read what I have said. I SAID THAT I TOOK IT FROM THE ARTICLE ON KRUM. I haven't payed attention to the words "the first laws", my fault, sorry. Of course, you're right about this, only a dumb person would argue. Yet, again, I don't agree with the way you have edited it because it gives very insufficient information. For a nation, it's first laws are a key event.

Dear Deyan, I'm afraid there are too many articles on khan Krum and many of them are examples for a patriotic mithology rather than a proper historiography. I agree that the whole review of Bulgarian History in Wikipedia is too brief and couldn't create reliable idea about Bulgarian past... But I couldn't dare to write more widely. It must be a systematic revision with clear conception. This is quite hard not only because there are many points of view about many problems in the tradition of the historical researches, but even modern popular myths as these created and supported from laical persons like Petar Dobrev... Finally, I have to say that supposed laws of Krum (other Byzantine Historians who described his reign and lived not too far from his time didn't mention anything about the existence of law reform although that reform consists of really spectacular and not typical regulations) could not be dedefined as "first laws for a nation". There are reasons to think that the first laws which described the structure and the methods of a state harmony were founded in the times of khan Asparoukh.

Yes,what you're saying is logical, but can you show me some sources, links, etc.? In Bulgaria, it is widely accepted and agreed that Krum's laws were the first that really established order and formed an adequate state policy.-Deyan

Dear Deyan, Then how must be treated the pact between the Seven slav tribes and Severs and the motley group of khan Asparoukh? Planned systematic fortification of the whole territory of the lands of the federation during first decades after 681? Clear territorial division between slavs and protobulgars? Lack of information about internal religious and cultural conflicts from 681 to 814 although scientists such prof. V. Zlatarski supposed existence ot pro-bulgarian and pro-slavic parties among aristocrasy in the second part of 8th century? Information about my point of view you could reach in the texts of a leading contemporary archaeologist Rasho Rashev. - Anonymos

Dear Anonymous, look, maybe it's best to leave it in as it is for now. There are sources from where you can get proves of Krum's laws;amazingly enough, I can't find them in the net yet.-Deyan.

Dear Deyan, I'll cite "History of Bulgaria" in 14 volumes from Bulgarian science academy's team, volume II, Sofia, 1981, p. 144, about Krum's laws: "Information about them contains only one source - the well-known Suidas Lexicon." Further from the same text: "These laws themselves as exposed from Suidas carry to some extent legendary character, and some of them are refuted from other information about bulgarian realities at these times." - Anonymous.

[edit] Bozhidar Dimitrov's theory

Is it really worth mentioning? It's an interesting new theory, but it has some serious flaws... the Bulgarian language is completely Slavic and I wouldn't say the Slavic Bulgarian language of the time was so similar to the Bulgar language, even if it was Iranian (thus Indo-European) and not Turkic, as proposed by this theory. Dimitrov emphasises that the Bulgars that settled in the are were quite many, enough to defeat a (if I remember correctly) 60,000 Byzantine army led by the emperor himself. I would estimate the number of all the Bulgars that came at about 120,000 (at most), but Dimitrov's theory states that the Slavs were less than people think and therefore the Bulgars were as many as the Slavs or even outnumbered them. His theory doesn't answer the question why would the state adopt a Slavic language, and not the Bulgar one, if the Bulgars were as many as the Slavs, provided that the rulers of Bulgaria at that time were Bulgars, as well as all the nobles and the whole administration. Also, if the two languages "merged", there would be more Bulgar traces in the Bulgarian language, not just a couple of words. Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavonic) is the first Slavonic language attested in writing, thereby influencing almost all other Slavic languages... you can't call that a language a semi-Slavic blend, and this is easy to prove. And besides, a funny part of the theory saids that the reason why the Bulgarian rulers at some time began to carry Slavic names was because the Slav wives of the tsars were insisting on this, which made me laugh the first time I read it. Also, as far as I know, almost none of the Bulgar tradition and folklore is preserved nowadays in Bulgaria, which is also an argument for the Slavic assimilation. We have a Slavic language, Slavic culture, names and so on. Dimitrov also says that the Bulgarians are physically different from the Slavs, which I oppose. I've been many times to Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia, other South Slavic countries, and if I met other South Slavs in Bulgaria I wouldn't say they're foreigners before hearing them speak. It's normal that we're a bit different from East and West Slavs (Russians, Czechs, Poles), after all, we've been living south on the Balkans for about 1500 years now. --TodorBozhinov 11:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth mentioning - that's why i put it in brackets. It might be kept at the bottom of the page or I don't know where as an interesting fringe theory but its place in the main body of the text is indeed superfluous. VMORO 19:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)~

Bojidar's theory is not without merit. However, he is not a highly trained and an accomplished scholar who would develop a strong theory and defend every point of it meticulously and with intellectual fervour. Again, this doesn't mean he cannot have good ideas ... In defence of his theory I'd like to state that his initial explanation seems about right. A small unit of Bulgarian soldiers would not be able to defeat a regular Byzantine army. Some people estimate the whole wave of migration to have numbered approximately a million. This includes women (where polygamy was not uncommon), old people and children. What happens later has changed the demographics substantially. 1.Constant warfare, where the Bulgar warriors bore most of the brunt 2.Later and more intense Slavic migrations 3.Slaughter of many Bulgar nobles (and their families) by Boris on two occasions and later by the Russian and Byzantine invasion 4.Slavic inclusion has also been part of the Khans' strategy to balance the power of the Bulgar nobles (Kaloyan)

[edit] Names of the subarticles

The names of the subarticles: History of Independent Bulgaria and History of Democratic Bulgaria are not very well chosen. Independent Bulgaria (1878-1940) was also democratic, while Democratic Bulgaria (1990-) is also independent. :-) bogdan 19:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1878 -- Independence or autonomy?

History of Independent Bulgaria article begins with:

The History of Independent Bulgaria commenced with the Treaty of San Stefano of 3 March 1878 which provided for an independent Bulgarian state much of Thrace and Macedonia, as well as modern Bulgaria.

However, Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 says :

Russia agreed a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano (Ayastefanos Anlaşması in Turkish) on 3 March, by which the Ottoman Empire recognized the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and autonomy of Bulgaria.

Which of the two is wrong? bogdan 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the independence was declared only in October 1908, so the whole naming of Independent Bulgaria for the article is wrong... bogdan 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The San Stefano Treaty was for independance (and, much larger Bulgaria), but the Congress of Berlin "The independence of Bulgaria, however, was denied: it was "guaranteed" autonomy and guarantees against Turkish oppression" - that is. And with the "Unification of Bulgaria" revolt in 1885 (why nowhere mentioned?!?) there was the actual independance ot Bulgaria acnowledged by the 'European Great Powers'. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Berlin%2C_1878 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin 83.228.1.116OhuBohu

[edit] Article organization

Don't you think the general History of Bulgaria should be a fully informative article that sums up the most important events of Bulgarian history, rather than just a page where to choose a certain period of history to read about? I mean having the most important information divided into paragraphs and included in the article, just attaching a main article to each paragraph. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bozhinov's map

The map 'Bulgaria-(893-927)-TsarSimeon-byTodorBozhinov.png' is not unsourced. As a matter of fact, it originates in the 1979 Bulgarian Military Atlas. Some inaccuracies are worth correcting though, e.g. there was neither 'Serbia' nor 'Hungary' in the early Tenth Century. Apcbg 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Before 1075, there was no Transylvania either, but don't let the facts get in the way! I would like an actually a modern reliable source which says this. If you find such a source, I'd also like to see how does it knows that all those regions were part of Bulgaria. On which old documents, which archeological evidence is this map based ? bogdan 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I must say that I also have always been quite perplex with this map, as it completely contradicts Ostrogorsky's maps on the First Bulgarian Empire. Ostrogorsky (who was, I remember, in particular an expert on medieval Bulgaria). In his view, at Simeon's time the Bulgarians had lost all lands north of the Danube; also his territories didn't reach the Aegaean. So we clearly have a conflict among sources, and you shouldn't be surprised if I say Ostrogorsky is of the two by far the most authoritative, as translated in many languages, and used in all universities.--Aldux 21:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That Ostrogorsky in all universities? Hmmm ... Apcbg 22:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what that link says, as I don't seem able to open it; but the awnser is yes, Ostrogorsky book is the standard Byzantine history in European universities; for example, at the Florence University in the Byzantine history exam Ostrogorsky's book was the obbligatory general text.--Aldux 23:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
'For example' is not exactly 'all', is it? Apcbg 12:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, it is clear that the version presented by Bozhinov's map is hardly the only one, therefore that map represents just a POV. bogdan 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
A modern reliable source on the subject is the authoritative 14-volume publication of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, History of Bulgaria (8 volumes already published), which features in particular the map
Bulgaria at the end of IX Century and the beginning of X Century
in its Volume 2, First Bulgarian State, BAS Publishers, Sofia, 1981.
That map confirms the territorial scope and border changes during the reign of Boris I and Simeon the Great as shown on the quoted Bulgarian Military Atlas map, and reproduced here in the article by Bozhinov's map. Apcbg 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That contrasts with another view: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Marr3c.jpg http://b-info.com/places/Bulgaria/ref/04-1STKN.gif
Again, I would really want to know what sources do those great Bulgarian historians use to conclude that the whole Romania and the land beyond it was part of Bulgaria. bogdan 16:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Those territories used to be integral part of the First Bulgarian Kingdom throughout its existence, but this page is not the place for original research; you are welcome to make your studies of the quoted sources and their sources. You might also wish to try find the sources of the author of your map depicting Tatars and Pechenegs in the Lower Danubian Plain in the 10th Century (!) ... Apcbg 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, they occupied the Danubian plain only around 1000, but Moldavia has been under their rule before 950. AFAIK, there are proofs of their presence in Romania as early as mid-9th century. bogdan 20:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"They"? While the Pechenegs moved to the west and conquered the territory of the First Bulgarian Kingdom east of Prut River in the early 10th Century, the Tatars came to the region much, much later.
You wrote: "That (i.e. Bozhinov's map referring to the years 893-927) contrasts with another view (i.e. your map showing Tatars and Pechenegs in the Danubian Plain)", and now "they occupied the Danubian plain only around 1000". So you admit that there is no such contrast indeed, and your earlier statement was false. Apcbg 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Britannica

"In the Balkans he extended the power of Bulgaria over south Macedonia, south Albania, and Serbia, which became his vassal; but Bulgaria's dominion north of the Danube was probably lost during his reign."

The image is POV because it presents only one point of view, the one of the Bulgarian historians. The POVs of others, including Ostrogorsky and Britannica are not presented. bogdan 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Britannica: "When he died he was master of the northern Balkans, including the Serbian lands..." /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it's a matter of whether they include Romania in the Balkans or not. bogdan 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And they do. /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[citation needed] - Francis Tyers · 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
To the unbelievers /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from a "A Concise History of Bulgaria" by Richard J. Crampton

From "A Concise History of Bulgaria", by Richard J. Crampton, Cambridge University Press, 1997:

"Simeon witnessed the loss of almost all Bulgarian territory beyond the Danube"

bogdan 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware (and I am not an expert), Hungarian and other sources claim that up until 1000 AD there were Bulgarian provincial rulers in Transylvania and Banat (or whatever those regions were called then). Runciman's book is written in the 30;s and he is not familiar with those sources I guess. Also, it seems strange that after the joint Bulgarian and Pecheneg armies destroy the Magyars north of the Black Sea and force them to flee west to Panonia, they would conquer Bulgarian territory. Perhaps they settled only west of the Danube or Tisza initially or to the extent they settled in Bulgarian territory, it was done as Bulgarian vassals. Who knows? I agree that BG control north of the Danuber was not the same as control south of the Danube. Plus those Hungarian sources only talk about Transylvania and Banat. It may well be that by the time of Simeon and Peter, Bessarabia and Eastern Wallachia were already in the hands of the Pechenegs. (160.39.58.139 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)) (VMRO 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC))
As for Crampton, he is not an expert on Medieval Bulgaria at all. (VMRO 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC))
I have unfortunately been unable to get hold of these two articles but have a look at them, may be illuminating. Definitely citing those primary sources I mentioned:
Ian Mladjov, "A New Look at Byzantium?s Northwestern Neighbors in the Tenth Century (Bulgaria, the Magyars, and Greeks in Byzantine and Hungarian Sources)", 25th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, University of Maryland, College Park, November 1999 (Abstract)
Ian Mladjov, "Trans-Danubian Bulgaria: Reality and Fiction?" Byzantine Studies, n.s. 3, 1998 (2000): 85-128. (VMRO 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Quote from Runciman (with footnotes)

Here is the passage from Runciman (pp. 149-150) written in the 30's I was referring to:

When the Magyars, defeated in Bulgaria, returned to their homes—the lands across the Dniester that they called Atelkuz—they found them occupied by the Petchenegs, the one race of which they were mortally afraid. They had to migrate; and so with all their families and all their belongings they crossed the rivers once more and then moved to the west, over the Carpathian mountains into the Central Danubian plain, to the banks of the Theiss, the frontier between the Bulgarian and Moravian dominions. It was a suitable time for them. The great King Svatopulk had died in 894, and his successors were effete and quarrelsome. Their opposition was easily overcome. By the year 906 the Magyars were lords of the whole plain, from Croatia to the Austrian marches and Bohemia. [1]
Symeon could not let this pass unchallenged. Transylvania and the valley of the Theiss were of no great importance to him, save for their salt-mines, whose produce was a great Bulgarian export. But no proud king can endure to lose vast provinces without striking a blow. But, though we know that his troops fought the Magyars, of the extent of the fighting we know nothing. According to the Magyars, the Greeks helped the Bulgarians, but they were both defeated. [2] Probably after a few unsuccessful skirmishes Symeon cut his losses and evacuated the land. His vast trans-Danubian Empire was reduced to the plain of Wallachia. [3]


  1. ↑ Constantine Porphyrogennetus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 168 ff.
  2. ↑ Anonymi Historia Ducum Hungariae, p. xli.
  3. ↑ In the absence of any definitive statement, it seems best to assume that Symeon only retained Wallachia, which he lost a few years later to the Petchenegs. The Magyars certainly acquired Bulgarian Transylvania and Pannonia; Moldavia, over which Symeon’s hold was weak, probably fell to the Petchenegs.

[edit] Historical atlases and more

I've given a look to the three historical atlases I've got; one is of no use, as it doesn't have any map of the First Bulgarian Empire; but the other two are concord with what I said about Ostrogorsky's maps, i.e. the northern border was the Danube and the southern border didn't strech to the Aegaean.--Aldux 17:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is undisputable that the First Bulgarian empire included lands north of the Danube at some points in time. Bulgars fought the Khazars on the Dnieper, the Avars in Pannonia and the Franks on the Middle Danube. The question is whether they lost those lands under Simeon. (VMRO 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC))
Check this map from a German atlas, reprinted in a Bulgarian atlas. Also this one from the same place. Curiously, the Bulgarian-made map in the atlas, showing Simeon's realm, does not show it north of the Danube. (VMRO 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC))
(edit conflict) No serious scholar disputes this, I agree. The maps I was referring to were of the time of Simeon not prior; but there is also one of Europe in 814, which shows Bulgaria controlling Wallachia, confirmed by another map of Ostrogorsky; Ostrogorsky in yet another map shows that the B. expanded to all today Romania, and had the Tibisco as western border (but note that the exact transdanubian borders are uncertain in this map).--Aldux 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Conventional maps reflect a view that Simeon lost the Transdanubian territories. Here is one map showing Bulgaria in 800 just before it conquers Transylvania from the Avars (around 802 or 805). Here is another by the same author, which shows Bulgaria in 900, right after the war with the Magyars. Technically, however, the map in the article you are disputing says the light yellow colour shows Bulgaria in 893, which is just before the Magyars and Pechenegs supposedly conquered the Northern territories. Whether the border was the Tisza or the Danube is a matter of dispute and we cannot know for sure. I think the Franks conquered the Avar kingdom up to the Danube so it only makes sense that the Bulgars got the rest and did not just go to the Tisza. Omurtag's armies fought the Franks of Louis the Pious on the Danube. But this may have changed later if Great Moravia took over some lands. Boris lost a war with the Moravians I am pretty sure. Then his son Vladimir (889-893) is known to have controlled the salt mines in Trasylvania (I cannot remember the sources here). Finally, whether Simeon and Peter (927-969) lost the transdanubian lands completely is also disputable. Please read Mladjov's articles, the y go over all the relevant Hungarian sources for the 10th and 11th century. Conventional maps have not reflected those sources, perhaps influenced by earlier historians like Osrtrogorsky and Runciman who were not familiar with the early sources. (VMRO 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC))
I think the authority Western historian right now is John Fine. We must see what he has written in his "The Early Medieval Balkans". Imladjov is his student. I actually found this exchange regarding the map between him and the map's author! (VMRO 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC))
Although I see he didn't perform the revisions... - Francis Tyers · 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian rule north of the Danube

Copied from User_talk:Imladjov#Bulgarian_rule_north_of_the_Danube

Hello, I hope you're still there :) A few Romanian Wikipedians have questioned the degree of Bulgarian rule over the territories north of the Danube (from the defeat of the Avar Khaganate by Krum till the time of Samuil), and claim it's "theoritical" and not continuous, but instead periodical, and there was little evidence of it. I tried to defend the position that these territories were continuously part of the Bulgarian Empire, but I'm not an expert on the subject and have no access to the primary sources that this is based on. Could you please help settle the issue? You may like to read User talk:Bogdangiusca#Map of Bulgaria. Thanks in advance! Todor→Bozhinov 10:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Todor. I happened by your comment by chance, as I have retired from editing following the Tsar travesty. I have lost any and all inclination to contribute to or support a project which is so openly affected by inept and irresponsible editing. In that particular example the scholarly literature was blatantly ignored and definitions were created on the basis of exceptions and misapplications. And that did not even involve nationalist bias.
Bulgarian political and military presence north of the Danube is usually not denied but often qualified and minimized by Hungarian and especially Romanian authors, for obvious reasons. That being said, Dahn makes some important points. It would be appropriate to at least indicate the uncertainty of the precise reach of the northern frontier by using a dotted or interrupted line there (as opposed to elsewhere in your map). That the quality of Bulgarian administration over some of this area (especially Bessarabia and further NE) was different from that south of the Danube is clear. This is very much a "march" (in Carolingian terms), and moreover an area readily made available to foederati like the Magyars and the Pechenegs. Further S and W the administration, rudimentary as it would have been, was more standard and based on a number of fortified centers. According to the Hungarian chronicles, these fell under Arpadian control only in the early 11th century.
Epigraphic sources document Bulgarian military presence on the Tisza and the Dnieper in the reign of Omurtag, and literary sources (Byzantine and Frankish) indicate that Krum and Omurtag expanded into the Carpathain Basin (i.e., the area between the N-S flowing middle Danube and the Carpathians). In De administrando imperio Constantine Porphyrogenitus indicates that in his time (i.e., c. 950), after the Magyars had arrived in Pannonia, the Danube still separated them from the Bulgarians to the east and that the area between the Danube and the Dnieper was a region of Bulgaria (although in both cases he also mentions Magyar and Pecheneg settlement within these general bounds).
In general I would recommend the excellent study by Petăr Koledarov, Političeska geografija na srednovekovnata bălgarska dăržava, vol. 1, Sofija 1979, and an article by Vasilka Tăpkova-Zaimova, "Roljata i administrativnata organizacija na t. nar. 'otvăd-dunavska Bălgarija'" in Studia Balcanica: proučvanija po slučaj vtorija meždunaroden kongres po balkanistika, Sofija 1970. I have published a lengthy article on the subject in Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines, n.s. 3 (1998), but in these respects it pretty much bears out the aforementioned studies. Koledarov's work in particular is instrumental and it also takes into account the relevant modern literature, including the works of Romanian historians taking opposite positions on the issue.
In my opinion your map would benefit from the following:
  • A perhaps more generalized and conjectural line for the northern frontier between the northern reaches of the Tisza and the Dniester.
  • The NW corner should probably be retracted further to the SE, and the line should run from somewhere S of Pest and N of Kalocsa on the Danube to somewhere N of Solnograd on the Tisza. It is assumed that this territorial loss was effected by the settlement of Magyar clans who were not Bulgarian foederati in the area.
  • Although noting the annexation of Serbia in 924-931 is fine, much of the southern border seems exaggerated.
  • As far as a relatively stable frontier is concerned, Simeon extended his rule to include Ioannina and Veroia in N Greece but he did not secure a lasting outlet to the Aegean either SW of Thessalonica or in "Belomorska Trakija." The frontier (at Simeon's death and under Petăr) ran inland (including Veroia) NE towards Thessalonica, passed some 22 km N of it, then further to the NE leaving Serres and Philippoi under Byzantine rule, and then N towards the Marica valley leaving Adrianople and the eastern Rhodopes to Byzantium but Plovdiv and Boruj to Bulgaria. N of Adrianople it followed the Strandža-Sakar mountains to the E and then headed SE to include the ports of Sozopol and Ahtopol in Bulgaria. The border with Byzantium probably ran between Vize (Bulgarian) and Midia (Byzantine) in the mid-10th century. Any territories further south that you have included in your map represent very fleeting occupation, and essentially the extent of Bulgarian raids. In Koledarov's maps they are defined as "voennovremenni granici," but even that obscures the occasional and impermanent nature of Bulgarian presence in those areas.
I hope this is of some help. Since I do not check these pages with any regularity, I cannot promise a prompt response to a follow up. Best, Imladjov 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough and clear response! I will revise my map accordingly. I'm really sorry to hear you've decided to quit Wikipedia and hope that's not your final decision, since your work here considerably improved the coverage of medieval European history. Best regards, Todor→Bozhinov 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The map should be removed until these alterations have been made. - Francis Tyers · 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
While it appears that the trans-danubian territories are disputed among scholars, what appears clear from the comments of Imladjov and all the source I looked to is that the southern borders are not part of the academic consensus; the Aegaean was never reached in a stable way.--Aldux 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the southern acquisitions of Simeon should be revised as per the suggestions above. Permanent territorial gains were much smaller than the extent of Bulgarian raids all the way to the Isthmus of Corinth. Also the northern borders should be amended accordingly. Why don't you ask User:TodorBozhinov to do it? (VMRO 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
Finally, can someone please consult Fine's book as a neutral source? I am under the impression that the objections to the map were much larger in scope than Simeon's rule. Seemed to me that the Romanian editor was objecting to Bulgarian presence north of the Danube altogether (i.e. in all periods and all territories), which looked like it was motivated by nationalistic bias. On the other hand, I do not think Bulgarians draw these maps of Simeon's empire to justify some territorial claims to Transylvania or Wallachia. (VMRO 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
I never disputed the presence of Bulgarians to the north of the Danube. In Wallachia, Banat and Southern Transylvania, there were local Slavic "Bulgarian" populations, some of which were assimilated by the Romanians as late as 13th/14th century. BTW, using the name "Bulgarians" for the Southern Slavs from that time it's a bit anachronistic. It's like naming the Ancient Romans living in the Balkan peninsula "Romanians". bogdan 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It is no more or less anachronistic than calling the Latin-speaking Vlachs of the 13-th and 14th century "Romanians". (VMRO 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
But the 13th century "Vlachs" called themselves "Romanians" (români/rumâni) or "Aromanians" (armâni/rămâni). bogdan 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Just as the 13th century "Slavs" called themselves "Bulgarians". Which does not mean there was a Bulgarian nation in the modern sense. (VMRO 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
Of course, there were no "nations", but just "ethnic groups". bogdan 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Ethnicity is also a modern concept and in my view is just as "constructed" as nationhood but again, this is a point of contention. Wikipedia is not a place for concepual arguments. In any case being Bulgarian or Romanian was probably not so exclusive and clear cut in those times. I know of so many Bulgarians from Western Macedonia who had Vlach ancestry for example. I tend to think Bulgarians and Romanians are quite similar in background, it is just that north of the Danube the Latin language prevailed and south of the Danube - the Slavic (Bulgarian) language. (VMRO 17:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
The concept of ethnicity was a bit different: it was more like "those like us" versus "others". For example, in Wallachia, people often used the word "sârbi" (Serbs) for all South-Slavic people, including Bulgarians. :-) bogdan 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, ethnicity is often a result of assimilation into the superstratum culture/language. In my case, if you go back two and three generations, the Romanian element thins out and I have Austrian, Czech, Greek, Hungarian, and Bulgarians as well, while I myself am all but absorbed into Anglo-Saxon America. My spoken Romanian is awkward, my Romanian vocabulary is impaired, and my Romanian spoken grammar is often atrocious. That's the way it goes. 68.121.32.98 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, seems to me that some Bulgarians in Wallachia, Southern Transylvania and Moldova in the 14th and 15th centuries were immigrants from south of the Danube. Don't know about Transylvania at the time but Wallachia and Moldova certainly had on tp of these an indigenous Slavic population in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries which later must have got assimilated. The language of many Wallachian and Moldovan administrative (not church!) documents is not Church Slavonic but much more influenced by the vernacular dialect, analogous to the spoken Bulgarian of the time. Even the purified latinised modern Romanian has so many Slavic words. Now I do not know if the indigenous Slavs of Wallachia and Moldova thought of themselves as Bulgarians. It is likely that they might have though of themselves as Wallachians and Moldovans, who knows. (VMRO 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
Modern Romanian has so many Slavic words because the purification failed. Also, there's no surprise that the Bulgarian vernacular influenced the OCS in Romania: the Wallachians and Moldavians went to study the language in Bulgarian monasteries.
That could be one possible explanation. If you know Russian, have a look at Russian linguist Bernstein's study of the Wallachian and Moldovan official documents. It provides a good argument that Moldova and Wallachia had their own Slavic populations and that the "bulgarianisms" in the documents are not a result of Bulgarian influence but were local.(VMRO 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
BTW, around 1800, some Bulgarian Catholics settled in the area of Bucharest where I live. There still is a Catholic Church down the street. :-) bogdan 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Bulgarian catholics and orthodox emigrated to Romania all the time. I am supposed to have relatives in Bucharest whose ancestors moved to Romania way back in the 1800's. The families have not had contact since the 60's but reportedly the Romanian branch are now thoroughly Romanianised and do not know any Bulgarian. (VMRO 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
I know two girls who had a Bulgarian grandparent each. :-) bogdan 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So I edited the map to show the disputed regions. I kind of suck with the software though, so I welcome people to improve on it. - Francis Tyers · 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, so now pale yellowish is undisputed and pale greenish is disputed/temporary/possibly lost? I would suggest hachures, it's the way such situations are typically dealt with. And I really think someone should have notified me about this dispute earlier so I could have taken a more active part. I can edit the map accordingly using hachures to mark the disputed areas, but have the edits you made to the image been agreed upon? I mean, are those really the undisputed and disputed areas of Bulgarian rule north of the river? Todor→Bozhinov 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Can Todor, instead of this new edited map, produce another one reflecting User:Imladjov's suggestions. Especially redrawing the northern borders and more importantly the southern ones. It should probably be beneficial to distinguish between genuine territorial gains under Simeon and temporary raids into Byzantine territory. Furthermore, the new redrawn Transdanubian territories can be shaded differently to reflect the fact that Simeon might have lost them in his reign. However, as I said before, the yellow colour should reflect Bulgaria in 893, i.e. before the northern regions' ostensible loss. (VMRO 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC))
Yep, it's absolutely possibly, but I don't think I would have enough time until the weekend. I could do this on Saturday or Sunday. Todor→Bozhinov 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be great. Please see the section below for additional info. (VMRO 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Bulgarian governors, vassals and their descendants (with maps!)

The reasons I was sceptical of the claim that Bulgarian rule north of the Danube was completely obliterated by the Magyars (and Pechenegs) can be found in the following Wikipedia articles. They are about Bulgarian provincial governors and their descendants (some of whom are claimed by some Romanian historians to have been Vlach or simply "Slav"). There are good maps provided with each article.

  1. Glad - provincial governor of Banat and parts of Southern Transylvania around 900, defeated by the Hungarians ca. 935
  2. Ahtum - descendant of Glad, ruled the same territory around 1000, perhaps as a Hungarian vassal
  3. Salan - governor of present day Vojvodina and Backa under Simeon. Defeated by the Hungarians around 900.

So it seems to me that the Hungarians originally settled west of the Tisza and then set out to conquer the Bulgarian dominions and vassals in Transylvania and Banat. And it is likely that some (but definitely not all) of those territories were still under Bulgarian rule at Simeon's death and even later.

Here are a couple of other maps, accompanying the original source (Gesta Hungarorum).

  1. Transylvania just before the Hungarian conquest
  2. The Bulgarian Empire at the time of the Hungarian resettlement
  3. Hungarian conquest of Transylvania

[edit] The map is wrong

The map of the First Bulgarian Empire is incorrect. Just look at its borders! --PaxEquilibrium 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_Bulgaria_3b6b.html"