Talk:Peter Delyan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
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! | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Peter Delyan: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
 |
Peter Delyan 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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Serbian historians and those from republic of Macedonia consider Samuil and his succsesors as Slavs or macedonian Slavs and not Bulgars,so puting that Peter was Bulgar is not neutral.He was emperor of Bulgaria,but it doesn`t mean he was Bulgar.Just like Constantine Bodin was emperor of Bulgaria,but he wasn`t Bulgar.Uprising started in modern Serbia,among ancestors of modern Serbs so it should stay how his name is written in serbian.
Ostrogorski says calls last archbishop Slav John(Словен Јован),if someone else says different it should be put in the article.
If quotes for other things are needed,I will give it.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 04:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but the historians in the other parts of the world consider Samuil and his successors Bulgarians. So putting only Slav is also not neutral : ) But I want you to understand something, the Bulgarian people emerged as a mixture of Bulgars and Slavs, and there were more Slavs than Bulgars. Bulgaria has always been a Slav country so Slav here should also mean Bulgarian.
- And in the past much of what is now Serbia used to be populated by Bulgarians and within the borders of Bulgaria (see the talk page of Pirot, there is a long conversation on the topic I think). When this rebelion broke out in Belgrade, this town has never been in Serbian states up to that moment (1040), while in was Bulgarian in the period (805-c.1010). --Gligan 09:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We should not mix terms Bulgar,Bulgarian and Bulgaria.
I know what the rest of historian think,but some have different view which should be represented.
Delyans or Odelyan(to carve out of wood) name very clearly says he has Slavonic origin(which means his descendants would either be Bulgarians or Serbs,we cannot say which) and thats why I only put Slav,`cause in XI century was still very clear distinction between Bulgars and Slavs.
I know that Bulgarians are more Slavs then Bulgars,but Slav could also be Serb(in this context) as well as Bulgarian.
These parts of modern Serbia were parts of Bulgaria YES,BUT they had Slavonic,not Bulgar population.(If you have sources which says differently please quote me when and where those Bulgars from Belgrade and Pomoravlje went,`couse I`m curios.)What happened to them we could not tell.They moved out,or their descendants became Serbs or Bulgarians.That`s why I believe it is enough to put Slav,but OK if you think that Slav/Bulgar is better or precise definition,then OK,but both names of rebel leaders(Delyan and Tihomir) are very clearly slavonic.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, there wasn't any distinction between Bulgars and Slavs in the 11th century, they had long mixed, so please substitute that with "Bulgarian" and remove any mention of this ridiculous "Slavic uprising". The rulers of the First Bulgarian Empire already had Slavic names (Ivan Vladislav, Gavril Radomir, Vladimir) and used Old Bulgarian exclusively. So basically, all of your argumentation is totally flawed.
- I'd ask you to move the article back to its original position (according to the Wikipedia guidelines, as he was Tsar of Bulgaria, this should be exclusively indicated as "of Bulgaria"). Per WP:Undue weight, the view which you advocate, and which is only popular in Serbia, does not deserve the space you have alloted it, and should be summarized briefly, so that it does not seem as prominent as the prevalent one. I'd suggest giving it not more than three short sentences and a separate section like ===Alternative theories=== or something.
- The current version of the article is biased and gives too much credit to the alternative Serbian point of view, so it is not neutral at all, per WP:NPOV. Todor→Bozhinov 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- CrniBombarder, keep in mind that your mention of the name Odelyan to be of Slavonic origin is not necessarily true. As the Serbian historian M. Dinich point out it comes from the old-bulgarian verb "odoleti" which means "to win". This has given rise to the hypothesis that Delyan is not really part of the name. Lejean2000 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
...remove any mention of this ridiculous "Slavic uprising".
Are you my friend sugesting that ancestors of modern Bulgarians also lived in modern Albania and rebeled under Tihomir?You should become comedian.
If etnogenezis of Bulgarians was completed in XI centhury,how some of Samuils men had very clear Bulgar(Krakra),while other had very clear Slav/christian names (Dragomuz,Bogdan,Ivac,Nikolitza,Gavra)?Shouldn`t all of them have Slav/christian names,like Bulgarians today?Or I`m wrong again?
No,he was rebel leader who proclaimed himself tsar of Bulgaria,he led rebelion not state or even empire.He didn`t have capital or court or any other form of power.
Ok,you`re again hiding behind masses.Masses believe that Earth was flat,so it still doesn`t mean they right.I don`t see what`s the problem to explain and show other views.To you(from world and Bulgaria) it`s alternative theory,but for us(from Serbia and RM) your theory is alternative.I have my sources,if needed I will quote them and it is expected the same from all others.Nothing more,nothing less.
As I said,it should stay he was a Slav(Bulgarian or Serb),`cause that`s what he was.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- But non-Slavic names are still in use in Bulgaria as they have been for 1300 years, for example many people nowadays bear the names Krum, Kurt, Omurtag and others. The fact that the Slav predominated does not mean that all Bulgar heritage has vanished. There are now non-Slavic words in the Bulgarian language still in use from the time of Asparukh.
- And, there were also almost no Bulgars in Thrace, does it mean that this population has anything to do with the Serbs??? Look, my friend, you should agree that some territories in what is now Serbia (and the whole of Macedonia : )) were traditionally populated by Bulgarians. You know that the old name of Southern Morava was Bulgarian Morava, while of Western Morava was Serbian Morava, so there used to be the approximate border between our peoples. These names were not just a coincidence.
- Other questions: if Peter Delyan was indeed a Serb, why then he did not act in any cooperation with the Serb states; and why if he wanted to lead the Serbs to freedom he adopted the name of the Bulgarian Emperor Peter I? The Bulgarians had destroyed the Serbian states several times, so I doubt that the Serbs had good feelings to them. --Gligan 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, my ancestors lived in modern Albania too — we ruled over much of Albania during significant periods, and there is still a small Bulgarian-speaking (from a purely linguistic point of view, no offence to our brothers in the RoM) population there. I haven't thought of becoming a comedian yet, but I'll take that as a compliment :) And yes, you're wrong again, I don't see why some of the Bulgar names shouldn't have been preserved at least for several centuries, and particularly among a part of the nobility, which is traditionally known to be reluctant to mess with the "rabble".
- You're confusing the terms "wide majority" and "tiny minority" with "masses". You Serbs may be "masses", but you (and we, of course) are all but nothing, purely mathematically, compared to the rest of the world. So if the wide majority thinks one way and you think the other way, then your position may well not deserve the same attention as the commonly accepted one. This is what Wikipedia:Undue weight is all about, and I'm just applying guidelines here. Todor→Bozhinov 09:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
To Todor Bozhinov: The objective, scientific truth is not a matter of consensus or out-voting the "other side". The objective facts in this case are very stubborn; Deljan's rebelion started in Zeta (nowadays Montentegro) and NEVER, I repeat, NEVER involved Paristrion (Bulgaria proper) and old Bulgarian centers within its territory - Preslav, Pliska and Dorostol. The uprising of Georgius Vojteh in 1072, as well, started in connection with Serbian movements in Zeta and, again, Danube Bulgaria (Paristrion) was not part of it. Just a chance? Well, I don't think so! These two historical events, Deljan's and Vojteh's, strongly point toward a distinct ethnic differences between people of Zeta, Morava and Vardar valley on one side and Bulgaria proper on the other side. As to your question: "if Peter Delyan was indeed a Serb, why then he did not act in any cooperation with the Serb states; and why if he wanted to lead the Serbs to freedom he adopted the name of the Bulgarian Emperor Peter I?"
Who said he did not act in cooperation with Serbian states? The Byzantine sources? Again, to remind you: Deljan's uprising was just continuation of Vojislav's (Serbian ruler of Zeta) victories over Byzantines. The fact that Byzantine sources do not mention this connection directly does not imply its non-existence.
- Paristrion is not the only Bulgaria proper; Bulgarian proper included the theama of Bulgaria and the valley of Morava too. These lands, including Belgrad had never been part of any serbian state up to that moment (1040). But they have been Bulgarian for centuries and the conscousness of the local population used to be Bulgarian.
- Also Pliska, Preslav and Drastar were not the only centres of Bulgarian culture and government; Ochrid and Prespa were important spiritual and military centres since the reign of Boris I and their importance even grew later under Samuil and his successors. The western Bulgarian lands were conquerred last by the Byzantines and it is natural that the first major rebellions would be in these areas, not in Paristrion (eastern Bulgaria was conquerred for first time in 971 and for a second time in 1001).
- The rebellion did not occure to the east because from Belgrad Peter Delyan decided to march southwards to the last Bulgarian political centres, Skopie and Ochrid; not to the east (Pliska and Preslav). There was anothe obective reason for that-the rebellion of Tihomir in Drach, which is again to the southwest.
- Even his name suggests the Bulgarian character of the rebellion- he chose to be crowned as Petar II, after Petar I who was considerred the "good Emperor" by the Medieval Bulgarians. Also he was most probably descendand of Samuil or at least he wanted to be seen as such. --Gligan 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The name Peter is from greek origin and means stown.The name Delyan was also according to chroniclеs from greek origin and means with lower origin. Peter was tsar of Bulgaria. Even Belgrade as name was mentioned for first time under Bulgarian rule. There ware any Serbians, Macedonians or something else there. 85.187.30.237 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Connections between First Bulgarian Empire and modern Bulgaria
Look,if we like to be neutral,we must consider that that what today mean word "bulgarian" is not with the same meaning in mediaeval(for me),especially if we like to quote byzantine sources.For byzanntines,all people who was under Bulgarian rule were bulgarians,people from Macedonia,whole Serbia,even Bosnia.It's true that this countries were conqured by bulgarians and were part of First Bulgarian Empire,that's why byzantines refer to this population as bulgarians.But,it's evident that those population wasn't racially homogenous,for simple reason:modern peoples from these countries and Bulgaria,even today are racially different,thus must be that they are different before 10 centuries,if we know that there is not some significant migrations on Balkans last 10 centuries between these countries.So,maybe I'm bore,but my point is:there is no nations on Balkans in mediaeval with same sense like today,bulgarian today and in mediaeval have not same meaning,and for byzantines whole Slavic population on Balkans is bulgarian. From those population on Balkans,today grow Serbian,Montenegrian,Bosnian,Macedonian and modern Bulgarian nation.
We have not evidences for nationality of Petar Delyan,but in this light we don't need it.But we can say about reasons for uprising of Petar Delyan and we can say what were objectives of this uprising.If the objectives were restoration of Bulgarian state,with same center of power,and with the same political and military organisation,then provide facts or logical conclusions about that. If he adopted the name of emperor Peter I,what was the reason for that,some benfitions or something? I read the all article and discussions,but I haven't found real reasons to believe that the goal of uprising was restoration of Bulgarian state,but I'm willing to believe that goal was separation of byzantine empire.Those countries where rebbelion appear weren't originaly bulgarian,but conquered from bulgarian emperors.So pls,explain me:did you think that is logical somebody to make rebellions against one conqueror for restoration of power of his previous conqueror. I would here to notice that in same light we can see the uprisings of comitopules in Macedonia in 969,and reign of tzar Samoil,but this is not the place about that. So,beside nationals feeling of modern Bulgarians,Macedonians and Serbs,I'm just a person who like to know more about the mediaeval history of Balkan.If here exist some real historian,I will be very grateful for answers and comentaries of my opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.186.160 (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
