Talk:Battle of Pliska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-Class) Middle Ages Portal Battle of Pliska is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do: Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) WikiProject Bulgaria (Rated B-Class) Bulgaria Portal 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list for Battle of Pliska: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit: yes Wikify: yes Verify: yes Cleanup: send sources in references to Wikisource Expand: a new section on sources, rearrange and complement info in Unresolved Issues to other sections, complete the geography, fill data about preparation, and other (fringe) theories about the battle Disambiguation: yes Update: yes NPOV: yes Lantonov (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Greece      (Rated B-Class) Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. If you would like to participate, you can improve Battle of Pliska, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments) High This article has been rated as a High priority article Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked WikiProject Eastern Europe     (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Comments 2 Pillage and killing 3 Map 4 Some sources

[edit] Comments

I'll admit that I've studied Byzantine history more extensively than Bulgarian history, and so I'm naturally inclined to view this article from a Byzantine rather than a Bulgarian perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to me that by all objective standards this article is heavily biased in the Bulgarians' favor. It consistently stresses Byzantine cruelty, for example when it states that "Nikephoros I and his army were busy pillaging, killing women and children, devastating and plundering the Bulgarian capital." Killing women and children almost always accompanies the sack of a city, and the sole purpose of including the phrase here is to portray the Byzantines as excessively cruel. The article also implies that the Byzantines were arrogant and militarily incompetent. Furthermore, Gligan, the user who contributed what is in my opinion the most biased material in this article, is himself Bulgarian and makes little attempt to maintain a neutral POV. Unless anyone would care to come to this article's defense, I'm going to nominate it to be checked for neutrality.

I am sorry to answer so late, but it is now that I have spotted that. In fact I have not written this information from my imagination, I have followed relatively closely "History of the First Bulgarian Empire" and I have even saved some things about Byzantine cruelty, which is in fact the reason for their defeat. Obviously they (or at least their Emperor) were militarily incompetent and arrogant in that case which cost their victory. No capable commander should lose his time pillaging a town while his enemy is not fully defeated and still capable for resistance. In fact the Byzantine POV was also the same, most of the original sourses for the battle are Byzantine... --Gligan 18:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pillage and killing

Pillage and killing in Pliska is important for this article more than some others. It explains the main reason why Byzanthians were defeated: while ransacking the town they gave time for Bulgarians to organise an ambush in the Varbitsa pass. So it relates to the battle itself and is not put only for the purpose to highlight cruelty of Bysanthians.

As for the cruelty itself, in how many town ransackings, children are ground with stones, as reported by a chronicler of that time (who was on the Byzanthian side) ? Lantonov 09:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you (user who started the talk) could have put your signature at least... As for being biased, the article has clearly stated these sources and has incorporated an extended quotation from a Byzantine source on the well-known cruelty and brutality of the invading Byzantine force:

Michael the Syrian, patriarch of the Syrians Jacobites in XIIth century described in his Chronicle the brutalities and atrocities of the Roman Emperor Nikephoros I Genik. “Nicephorus, emperor of the Romans, walked in Bulgarians land: he was victorious and killed a great number of them. He reached their capital, took it over and devastated it. His savagery went to such a point that he ordered to bring their small children, got them tied down on earth and made thresh grain stones to smash them.” The Byzantine soldiers looted and plundered; burnt down the unharvested fields, cut the tendons of the oxes, slaughtered sheep and pigs. [10] The Emperor took over Krum's treasury, locked it and did not allow his troops to reach it. [11]

Each sack of a city is a cruel thing yet you don't get similar descriptions of each and every sack, especially descriptions coming from the aggressor's side. Considering this, I don't think the neutrality label is adequate. --Amigov 09:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about not including a signature. I don't edit Wikipedia often, and I'm not at all familiar with technical details like that. Let me clarify my objection to the pillaging line. I don't object to it being in there, and I don't question the relevancy or the authenticity of Michael the Syrian's description. What I do object to is the sentence in its present form. I think it should be changed from "While Nikephoros I and his army were busy pillaging, killing women and children, devastating and plundering the Bulgarian capital" to something like the less biased "While Nikephoros I and his army were plundering the Bulgarian capital..." The article can provide primary sources describing the carnage, but the article's authors, who are supposed to be objective, shouldn't try to insert bias of their own. Also, this article's bias is evident not only in what it contains but what it does not contain. If you check the article's history, you'll see that "When Nicephorus I became emperor in 802, he planned to reincorporate Bulgar-held territory back into the empire. In 809, he sacked Pliska, the Bulgar capital, and although he did not launch a major military expedition against them, he settled many Anatolian families in the area," was replaced with "When Nicephorus I became emperor in 802, he planned to reincorporate Bulgarian-held territory back into the empire. In 807 he launched a campaign but only reached Odrin and achieved nothing because of a conspirasy in his capital." Their are numerous other edits that attempt to skip over Byzantine successes while drawing attention to or glorifying Bulgarian ones. One last objection: the 80,000 figure for the strength of the Byzantine army is unsourced.

I don't think Michael the Syrian can really be considered a friendly Byzantine source (nor was he a contemporary, writing 400 years later and on the opposite side of the Byzantine world). Adam Bishop 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Michael the Syrian was a leader of the Orthodox Chirch in Syria, and Byzanthium was orthodox throughout its history, while Bulgarians were heathens at the time of the said battle, this chronicler can be considered leaning to the Byzanthian rather than the Bulgarian side. As for the time, it is true, he writes 400 years after the battle, but this doesn't change things that much. Lantonov 06:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He was the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch; there was a Greek Patriarch of Antioch at the same time, appointed from Constantinople. I don't know if they were actively antagonistic in Michael's time, but I doubt Michael was very pro-Byzantine. Adam Bishop 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you register an account in Wikipedia, you'll have at your disposal a button up at your editing window for your signature. As for the change as you have proposed it, I wouldn't mind. Indeed, the article provides enough information on Nicephorus's cruelty so it doesn't need to be stressed in each and every sentence. I suggest that you change that sentence as you have proposed, add any relevant information (with the respective sources quoted) and remove the neutrality label. Have in mind, though, that this should be an article about that specific battle, not about all the campaigns led by Nicephorus! As for Michael the Syrian: well, he is clearly a Byzantine chronicler, not a Bulgarian one. --Amigov 10:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the words, objected to by the anonymous user:pillaging, killing women and children, devastating because, indeed, they are repeated, I also added some additional sourced information, to make this event more concrete. I propose removing the neutrality label. Lantonov 09:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I am looking for a map of the battle with Balkan passes including also Kotel and Rish passes, and Pliska. If someone has it, please help. Lantonov 06:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a map in the Polish wiki article on Krum. I am not very happy with it because it is too general but this is the best I could find googling. Lantonov 15:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a very interesting discussion on this battle here [1]. One of the maps given (about Krum's campaigns), is taken probably from the site of the Bulgarian Military Academy [2]. The other two maps (battles of Varbitsa Pass and Versinikia) are very nice to have in English and put here. However, I am not very good at Photoshop and map drawing and would appreciate help from someone with those skills. And the maps could not be put here "as is" because of copyright. Lantonov (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Kandi from the BG Wikipedia to make the map of the battle and he agreed to try: ) --Gligan (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it will improve the article greatly. I translated some primary sources (Theophanes, Anonymous Vaticanus) and put them in the footnotes in order to compare, discuss, and find place of this material in the body of the article. I intend to complete primary sourcing with Michael the Syrian, Skylitzes, and Zonaras. After this is done, those sources will be transferred to Wikisource. Lantonov (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the 2 maps, Kandi and Gligan. This is a big improvement. I promise to fill up details on the events in the maps, so that the reader spends time on looking in the maps and imagining the theatre of events. Lantonov (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some sources

Just a few sources for later reference. Here's the primary source bits for the death of Nikephoros:

• Joannes Zonaras, Epitome historiarum [3]
  • [02192] καὶ αὐτίκα κατὰ τῆς βασιλείου σκηνῆς ὡρµήκεσαν, καὶ ἀναιρεῖται µὲν ὁ Νικηφόρος, τὸ δ' ὅπως ἠγνόηται.
  • [02193] λέγεται δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῶν οἰκείων ἀναιρεθῆναι ἢ πρωτουργησάντων τὴν ἐκείνου σφαγὴν ἢ τῶν µὲν βαρβάρων καταρξαµένων, τῶν δὲ Ῥωµαίων ἐπεξεργασαµένων τὸν φόνον τὸν τοῦ ἀλάστορος.

• Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia [4]
  • [11067] καὶ τῇ νυκτὶ τοῦ σαββάτου τάραχοι καὶ ὄχλων ἐνόπλων περὶ Νικηφόρον καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ ἀκουόµεναι παρατάξεις πάντας ἐξενεύρωσαν, πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἡµέρας ἐπελθόντες οἱ βάρβαροι κατὰ τῆς Νικηφόρου σκηνῆς καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ µεγιστάνων ἀναιροῦσι τοῦτον οἰκτρῶς, ἐν οἷς ἦν καὶ Ἀέτιος πατρίκιος, καὶ Πέτρος πατρίκιος, καὶ Σισίννιος πατρίκιος ὁ Τριφύλλης, καὶ Θεοδόσιος πατρίκιος ὁ Σαλιβαρᾶς, ὁ πολλὰ λυπήσας καὶ κακὰ ἐνδειξάµενος τῇ µακαρίᾳ Εἰρήνῃ, καὶ ὁ ἔπαρχος πατρίκιος, καὶ Ῥωµανός, πατρίκιος καὶ στρατηγὸς τῶν ἀνατολικῶν, καὶ ἕτεροι πολλοὶ πρωτοσπαθάριοι καὶ σπαθάριοι, καὶ τῶν ταγµάτων οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅ τε τοῦ ἐκσκουβίτου δοµέστικος, καὶ ὁ δρουγγάριος τῆς βασιλικῆς βίγλας, καὶ ὁ τῆς Θρᾴκης στρατηγός, καὶ πολλοὶ ἄρχοντες τῶν θεµάτων σὺν ἀπείροις λαοῖς, πᾶσά τε ἡ τῶν Χριστιανῶν καλλονὴ διεφθάρη· [...]
  • [11074] τὸν δὲ τρόπον τῆς τούτου σφαγῆς οὐδεὶς τῶν περισωθέντων ἀκριβῶς διηγήσατο·
  • [11075] φασὶ γάρ τινες, ὅτι καὶ Χριστιανοὶ πεσόντα τοῦτον ἐπέτρωσαν.
  • [11076] οἱ δὲ γυναικώδεις τῶν ἀνδρῶν οἰκέται αὐτοῦ, οἷς καὶ συνευνάζετο, οἱ µὲν τῷ τῆς σούδας πυρί, οἱ δὲ τοῖς ξίφεσιν ὤλοντο σὺν αὐτῷ.

For later discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. As you can see in the article, Theophanes Chronographia is the most important source, which is included in the text almost entirely, the bits above too. The whole text is translated in English by myself, and put in the footnotes, but I intend to move it to Wikisource. Another important source is Anonymus Vaticanus, which is also Byzantine (in Greek), and whose translation is also here. I have also the whole text of Zonaras that I also intend to translate and put in Wikisource. If you see some error in the translations, please write here, or change it in the article. I am not very comfortable with some words, such as 'drungarius', 'escuvites', 'hikanatoi', 'heliaka', 'Mannasas', 'domesticus'. Also, not very sure if litre is 330 or 320 grams. I saw a good translation of Anonymus Vaticanus in English on Paul Stephenson's site and I asked for his permission to cite it here, but he put some restrictions (not the entire text of the source), so I decided to include only my variant of translation. Lantonov (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these were offices in the Byzantine hierarchy. Droungarios is a military rank, for instance. The passage about the "effeminate men" who used to "sleep with" the emperor I would translate as "the eunuchs in his entourage". As far as I understand, Byzantine emperors had parakoimomenous, a small number of top-confidence servants who lived close to the emperor day and night, and they were often eunuchs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to give a link to the peer review, here [5] Lantonov (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

'ὁ ἔπαρχος πατρίκιος'? 'πρωτοσπαθάριοι καὶ σπαθάριοι'? Any suggestions? Lantonov (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A Spatharios was a medium-ranked military officer, that much I remember. Patrikios was, I think, a political rank of honour, nominally corresponding to an ancient Roman "senator". The Eparchos patrikios sounds like some special role among the senators, but I'd have to investigate that further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw many of those explained in Byzantine aristocracy. Those are:

• Domestikos – the domestikoi were originally imperial guards, who became generals in the themes. They included:
  • Megas Domestikos (Grand Domestic) - the overall commander of the army.
  • Domestikos ton Scholon (Domestic of the Schools) – the commander of the Scholae, originally a number of guards units, later a Tagma. This was a very prestigious title, which held a lot of power, unlike many of the other titles.
  • Domestikos tou thematos (Domestic of the Themes) – the commander and organizer of the military themes; there was one for the European themes and one for Asian themes.
• Strategos – a military commander of a theme, who often also had the title of doux (from Dux). The term is basically equivalent to "general" or "admiral", as it was used in both branches of service
• Protospatharios – a senior officer in the imperial guard. The spatharios was his subordinate.
  • Drungarios - a naval officer as well as an army officer. A somewhat higher version of the drungarios was the drungarokomes.

and many others, not mentioned in Theophanes. Bury equates Eparchos patrikios to Prefect. I still couldn't find about ἐκσκουβίτου (probably sort of troops, as they are commanded by a domestikos. Lantonov (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC) At last I found ἐκσκουβίτου. See Excubitors. Also here [6]. Lantonov (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)