PDA

View Full Version : More on units (another rant)...


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11

Siena
27-05-2004, 21:59
Originally posted by chefo
4.) Spear armed, skirmishing cavalry was hardly unique to the Baltic regions. In fact, one could find such troopers in the Spanish kingdoms (jinetes), Greece, Albania and Croatia (stradiots), Serbia (gussars), Hungary (hussars), England (border horse), Wallachia, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia and so on...

Chefo

sorry for being so narrow minded, but I will reply only to this.

of course - nothing is unique in that sense. Sword carrying people were nor unique, bowmen were not unique, heavily armored cavalry were not unique... Nothing is unique, if you look at big picture.

But if you would put side by side all those troopers you listed - I bet you would see differences...

So it all comes to the point of view.
In general - we could have played the game with about 7 units. Swordsman, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, spearman, bowman, crossbowman, cavalry archer....

Drake Maethor
28-05-2004, 10:10
@Chefo

Welcome to the forum lad!
Interesting that you registered yourself in November 2003 and that that was your first post! You seem to know a lot about medieval warriors so, feel free to post a little more often!
Also I would like to know what 'from far away' means! Why don't you tell us? There are a lot of nationalities here!


@Siena
Originally posted by Siena
Hi Drake Maethor,

the source you found is simply fruit of the immagination of the guy that wrote it.
It is very interesting, but not really fitting to form an opinion about Lithuanian army or tactics.

Most of historical books mentions that Lithuanians preffered throwing sprear instead of bow. They used bows, but not prevalently.


Hey Siena! BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MY SOURCES SAY!!!
You should read my posts better! We are in the same side here man! :p But yeah I know, this thread is so damn big...
But hey, LOOK, what my sources say is that they, the Lithuanian mounted warriors, fought with spears as a main weapon and that they could also throw them! (BTW, I've written 2 posts about the Lithuanian tactics, have you read the first one?).
But they also say (AND NOW READ WELL!) that when the fighting was unfitted for their mounted tactics ("If the battlefield was unsuited for massed cavalry actions"), they would unmount (ONLY THEN!!!) and use their bows (ONLY WHILE THEY WERE UNMOUNTED!!!). And I said that that was an example of how fond of skirmishing tactics they were.
Here is a quote of one of my sources, I've written it in my first post and I think is a good summary:

Lithuanian and Samogitan horse fought primarily with a long light spear which could be used for both thrusting and throwing. They often carried bows, but these seem to have been used exclusively for fighting on foot.

@Everybody
Originally posted by Elewyn
I would like to ask the devs to extend availability of hobilars also to Baltic lands (Lithuania and Samogitia especially)
I was thinking the same thing...
This week I've learned many things about Lithuania.
Many things that I wasn't aware of and I've found really interesting. Now, for example, I know that they got good beer :p , that they had an unique culture in the medieval times and I know also a bit about their very interesting history. But we usually have read the other side of it. I recall myself reading some months ago about the Teutonic knights and how they fought against pagans north of their territory! 'Pagans at north of Germany??' I said to myself... 'wow! that sounds interesting!' yeah I found that interesting, but I really didn't imagine that those Pagans were a whole nation: Lithuania.
A nation I knew very very little about.
Yes, tt is like a little jewel hidden inside big Europe (jewel specially for the beer! :D and hidden because we know very little about them. If you that live in Europe don't know many things about it then imagine me that live at the other side of the Atlantic!).
And one of those good surprises was the unique way their medieval inhabitants used to fight. I think that should be really in this game!
And of course I'm not the only one!
Then, why don't we prepare a good mail and write to our good developers about it and the very good reasons for why it should be included? And then of course we all who support the idea sign it. It is worth trying! Because I think that if they don't add this unique unit then they, Lithuanians, won't be really represented!
Hell! Can you imagine Scotland without Highlanders??? Can you imagine it without Highlanders dressed in their tartans fighting against the English knights????
Now I cannot imagine Lithuania without their pagan warriors!!!
Warriors mounted in their horses fighting and riding against the Teutonic knights!!!

@Bagpipes and Siautas
Originally posted by Siautas
lol. Tnx for good words and for interesting link.

Yes we have really good beer with old traditions. Normal beer is about 5 perc. of alkohol till 9.5 per. of alcohol (http://www.rinkuskiai.lt/apiealu/zaibo_stiklas.php).
.................................................. ................................

"ZEIMATIS NEPRAZUS"...IO see you can understand Lithuanian

Originally posted by Bagpipe
You better believe.
Our beer usually wins medals in various international competitions
eh... but what point to speak. Come and try it


Bagpipe, trust me, I would love to visit Lithuania, in fact I would love to visit all Europe!, but my country's monetary devaluation and the high euro makes things a little hard :rolleyes:! Just for you to figure it: Some few years ago, when the Argentine peso was tied to the dollar, one peso would be more than an euro (AHH, GOOD OLD DAYS!), nowadays I have to multiply every price in euros by something like 3.45 pesos! :silly:
But now is very cheap for you to come here! So, why don't you bring some!!! :D (BTW, Gorgy is coming! :go: )

@Siautas: Lobas! If I can understand Lithuanian???
Well! Does it matter?! If I do or I don't, whatever is it and whatever happens, Samogitians will not fall! :cheers:

All right! that's all!
Many thanks to you all for reading!
And yeah, this post is dedicated to my good friend Vaiksciojantis Kompiuteris! (:rofl: ) Although I don't sure if she deserves it 8) (anyway I'm a knight so thanks for helping me with that little translation!)

Krum The Terrible
28-05-2004, 11:03
I was away for a long time so I read this nice tread a little bit late. Finellach mentioned something about battle between our gratest tsar Simeon The Great (http://www.bulgaria.com/history/rulers/simeon.html) and the Croations. Can I ask for some details.

Elewyn
28-05-2004, 12:47
sorry, off-topic:

@Drake. And you haven't tasted Czech beer :cheers:

I think only Lithuanian and also little Bavarian are close to our best beer of the world. Unfortunatelly some of our best trademarka (Budweiser) are stolen by Americans.
Also in some counties Pilsner is synonyme for lager(not sure about spelling)

Bagpipe
28-05-2004, 13:20
Originally posted by Elewyn
sorry, off-topic:

@Drake. And you haven't tasted Czech beer :cheers:

I think only Lithuanian and also little Bavarian are close to our best beer of the world. Unfortunatelly some of our best trademarka (Budweiser) are stolen by Americans.
Also in some counties Pilsner is synonyme for lager(not sure about spelling)

Budweiser is originaly Czech? What'a news!

Elewyn
28-05-2004, 13:35
Originally posted by Bagpipe
Budweiser is originaly Czech? What'a news! Yes, Budweiser is from Budweis what's german name of south bohemian city of Ceske Budejovice. I never tried that american bull****, you know it's made especially for Americans and their beer is incomparable to our.
I doubt it's Budweiser (tasting same like original Budweiser) brewed in USA, it's rather some american bull****, just using name of our famous beer :angry:
but maybe I'm wrong, maybe american budweiser is tastes like our, then they are steeling customers.

Actually there are two Budweisers in the world. Europe mostly drinks original czech one, America american, rest of the world is divided, somewhere czech, somewhere american. There are many processes between those 2 companies all around the world

Bagpipe
28-05-2004, 13:35
Originally posted by Drake Maethor
@Chefo

I was thinking the same thing...
This week I've learned many things about Lithuania.
Many things that I wasn't aware of and I've found really interesting. Now, for example, I know that they got good beer :p , that they had an unique culture in the medieval times and I know also a bit about their very interesting history. But we usually have read the other side of it. I recall myself reading some months ago about the Teutonic knights and how they fought against pagans north of their territory! 'Pagans at north of Germany??' I said to myself... 'wow! that sounds interesting!' yeah I found that interesting, but I really didn't imagine that those Pagans were a whole nation: Lithuania.
A nation I knew very very little about.
Yes, tt is like a little jewel hidden inside big Europe (jewel specially for the beer! :D and hidden because we know very little about them. If you that live in Europe don't know many things about it then imagine me that live at the other side of the Atlantic!).
And one of those good surprises was the unique way their medieval inhabitants used to fight. I think that should be really in this game!
And of course I'm not the only one!
Then, why don't we prepare a good mail and write to our good developers about it and the very good reasons for why it should be included? And then of course we all who support the idea sign it. It is worth trying! Because I think that if they don't add this unique unit then they, Lithuanians, won't be really represented!
Hell! Can you imagine Scotland without Highlanders??? Can you imagine it without Highlanders dressed in their tartans fighting against the English knights????
Now I cannot imagine Lithuania without their pagan warriors!!!
Warriors mounted in their horses fighting and riding against the Teutonic knights!!!



I'm excited to the very deepest places of my heart:blush: Means, it wasn't in vain sitting here and sharing our knowledge. Thx again, my friend
:go:


Bagpipe, trust me, I would love to visit Lithuania, in fact I would love to visit all Europe!, but my country's monetary devaluation and the high euro makes things a little hard ! Just for you to figure it: Some few years ago, when the Argentine peso was tied to the dollar, one peso would be more than an euro (AHH, GOOD OLD DAYS!), nowadays I have to multiply every price in euros by something like 3.45 pesos!
But now is very cheap for you to come here! So, why don't you bring some!!! (BTW, Gorgy is coming! )


I'd like it very much, but you know, not everywhere in Europe economic situation is so positive. We, eastern countries, also face many problems, and it'll take some time till we reach the level of EU old-timers. Former occupation have left huge black sign in our economics, values and most important, people, their mind, willing and ability to work and to reach prosperity.

But at least I hope we'll do it well and new signs of it appears every day.

Btw, euro is now worth EXACTLY 3.45 of our national currency litas :D

Once again :cheers:

Henrik
28-05-2004, 14:03
Originally posted by Elewyn
Yes, Budweiser is from Budweis what's german name of south bohemian city of Ceske Budejovice. I never tried that american bull****, you know it's made especially for Americans and their beer is incomparable to our.
I doubt it's Budweiser (tasting same like original Budweiser) brewed in USA, it's rather some american bull****, just using name of our famous beer :angry:
but maybe I'm wrong, maybe american budweiser is tastes like our, then they are steeling customers.

Actually there are two Budweisers in the world. Europe mostly drinks original czech one, America american, rest of the world is divided, somewhere czech, somewhere american. There are many processes between those 2 companies all around the world

Though I never have had the chance to taste the czech version of budwiser i can't imagine that it's worse the american, because i really don't like the american budwiser !

I prefer to drink english beer (ale), but also belgian - they have so many different kinds - even some beers which don't look nor taste like it - IMO one would miss out some great beer experiences if one only drinks pilsner (lager) - why restrict yourself when there are some many different kinds :)

Elewyn
28-05-2004, 14:12
Oh, maybe misunderstanding. I don't think czech budweiser is worse than american. I don't know many cases when copy or stolen trademark is better than original.

And I also must say I don't drink only pilsner, of course. I only like it the best and I haven't found yet any better beer.

but we should return back to units or we'll be moved to off-topic, what won't be good. :)

Frujin, we need some impulses :) will there be any update today? please. Btw, how is the milestone?

timurlenk
28-05-2004, 14:18
american budweiser causes headache - dont want to know, what they use to brew this "soup". bahh.

anyone ever tasted original czech budweiser never will drink american bud again...

:cheers: na zdraví!

Henrik
28-05-2004, 14:55
yeahh, Elewyn - I would also like to know how far they are in this current milestone and what's lies ahead....

Gorgoroth
28-05-2004, 15:15
German and Hungarian beers are the best, and the Hungarian wine. :D
From German beers my favourite is the Holsten Pils, from Hungarian the Dreher Pils. :)

Elewyn
28-05-2004, 15:28
pils(ner) :) that's it :go:

Devs. There is big lack of news over here :)

joking. Go on wit your work and we are looking forward the result:cheers:

Finellach
28-05-2004, 16:51
Originally posted by Krum The Terrible
I was away for a long time so I read this nice tread a little bit late. Finellach mentioned something about battle between our gratest tsar Simeon The Great (http://www.bulgaria.com/history/rulers/simeon.html) and the Croations. Can I ask for some details.

I found these excerpts on one of the newsgroups not so long ago. They are quite exhaustable.

"CROATIAN KING TOMISLAV DEFEATED BULGARIAN EMPEROR SYMEON THE GREAT ON MAY 27, 927

Dominic Mandic

- - -

Journal of Croatian Studies, I, 1960, pages 32-43 - Annual Review of the
Croatian Academy of America, Inc. New York, N.Y., Electronic edition by
Studia Croatica, by permission. All reserved by the Croatian Academy of
America.

- - -

Three powerful states flourished in Southeastern Europe at the beginning of
the tenth century: Byzantine Empire, Bulgaria, and Croatia. Croatia spread
from the Raga River in Istria to the Drin in today's Albania, and from the
Adriatic Sea to the Drava and Danube Rivers in the north, and to the Drina
River in the east. The country was divided into White Croatia, from the Raga
to the Cetina in Dalmatia, and Red Croatia, from the Cetina to the Drin.[1]
Bulgaria extended over the territory from the Morava River to the Black Sea,
and from the Danube to Adrianople and Salonika. It spanned over what is
today Bulgaria, Macedonia, a greater part of Serbia, Albania, except a small
coastal strip, and a large part of northern continental Greece. Serbia was
then a small country between the central Drina and the Morava. It was called
Rascia. Since its origin in the seventh, century, Serbia was either
subjected to the Byzantine Empire or dependent on Croatia. In the beginning
of the tenth century, it became a dependent at one time of the Byzantine
Empire, at another time either of Bulgaria or Croatia.[2]

In the second decade of the tenth century, Croatia and Bulgaria were, at the
zenith of their powers. Tomislav, the first Croatian king (c. 910-929),
ruled Croatia[3]; Symeon the Great (893-927), duke and later emperor, ruled
Bulgaria.[4] During Tomislav's reign, Croatia had an army of 100,000
infantrymen and 60,000 mounted soldiers. Its navy consisted of 80 large and
100 small ships.[5] Tomislav was conscious of his power. He courageously
repelled neighboring enemies, particularly Magyars, whom he defeated several
times.[6] However, he neither attacked neighbors nor longed for their
territories. The Bulgarian ruler, Symeon, was a wise and able man with a
restless and insatiable spirit. He spent his entire life fighting battles
with neighboring countries. His basic aim was to defeat the Byzantine Empire
and conquer Byzantium so that he could rule the Balkans as the "Emperor of
the .Bulgarians and Greeks". To achieve his aim, Symeon overran the eastern
and central Balkans several times, occupied Serbia and finally attacked
Croatia. Constantine Porphyrogenitus recorded the event in his work De
administrando Imperio, written between 948 and 952. After describing how the
Serbian great zupan Zacharias fled to Croatia, when Symeon attacked him for
the second time, Porphyrogenitus continues, "Now, at that time these same
Bulgarians under Alogobotour entered Croatia to make war, and there they
were all slain by the Croats."[7]

Porphyrogenitus did not state the year when that occurred. However, some
historians, among them Croatian historians Racki[8], Klaic[9], and others,
concluded on the basis of Porphyrogenitus' data about Serbian history that
the event had to occur in 925. Zlatarski, the greatest Bulgarian historian,
holds the same opinion[10]. Croatian historian Sisic[11]. English historian
Runciman[12], Ostrogorsky[13] and others date the event with 926 A.D. on the
basis of the same data. It should be observed that the exact time when the
Bulgarians attacked the Croats could not be established on the basis of
Serbian history. After the description of Symeon's war against Serbia,
Porphyrogenitus starts the description of the war with the Croats with the
words "???? ?ò? ????ò? ???." which do not really mean, "now at that time,"
or "then, immediately after that," but rather, "at opportune, favorable
time"[14]. Such an expression allows a possibility that the Bulgarian attack
on Croatia did not immediately follow the second attack on Zacharias, but
rather that some time elapsed between them. Our explanation is particularly
true for Porphyrogenitus who, in his works, uses the expression "now" (???)
and "just now" (????) for the period of ten and one hundred years[15].

Other Byzantine Sources

Theophanes Continuatus, i.e. the continuer of Theophanes' Chronicle, another
Byzantine writer, mentions the war between the Bulgarians and Croats. He
writes, "On the twenty-seventh of the month of May, during the fifteenth
indiction, Symeon, ruler of the Bulgarians, led the army against the Croats
and fighting a battle with them, he was defeated and all under him were
slain ... and Symeon died in Bulgaria, ending his life, overpowered by grief
and broken-hearted ... And having heard of Symeon's death, the neighboring
peoples, Croats, Magyars, and others, decided to attack the Bulgarians ...
"[16]

According to this statement, the battle between Symeon and Tomislav,
respectively between the Bulgarians and Croats, occurred on May 27, 927,
because the fifteenth indiction corresponds to 927 A.D. When Symeon heard of
the defeat, he died of a broken heart. That could have happened seven or
eight days after the battle, while some of the escaped soldiers returned
from Eastern Bosnia to Preslav, capital of Bulgaria. Accordingly, Symeon
died about June 3, 927.

Theophanes Continuatus' statement has a first class value. He was a
contemporary of the event and besides used copious historical material
collected by Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Our writer wrote his work
during the reign of Emperor Nicephorus II, Phocas (963-969)[17], that is
less than forty years after the battle.

Georgius Cedrenus, a writer from the end of the eleventh and the beginning
of the twelfth centuries, says that the battle between Symeon the Great and
the Croats occurred in the month May, during the fifteenth indiction, which
corresponds to 927 A. D. He writes, "In the month of May, during the
fifteenth indiction, Symeon, ruler of the Bulgarians, attacked the Croats,
and, having a fight with them, was defeated in impervious regions and lost
all his army ... Symeon died stricken by a heart attack in Bulgaria ...
Then, having heard of Symeon's death, neighboring peoples, the Magyars,
Serbs, Croats and others decided, to attack the Bulgarians"[18].

Joannes Zonaras, a twelfth-century Byzantine writer, who distinguishes
himself in using old reliable sources, mentions Symeon's defeat in Croatia
and, a little later, his death caused by a heart attack. He reads, "But the
Bulgarian ruler Symeon, a blood-thirsty and restless man, attacked the
Croatian people and, being defeated by them in impervious regions, lost his
army... Symeon passed away of a broken heart"[19].

Georgius Cedrenus and Joannes Zonaras were exceptional experts in Byzantine
sources of earlier data[20]. When they write that the Croats defeated the
Bulgarians in May 927 and that Symeon, hearing that, died of a broken,
heart, it means that this fact was so stated in the best Byzantine works
contemporary to the event. It means that this is a historical fact.

Symeon Magister, a contemporary to the event, wrote his work during the
reign of Emperor Nicephorus II, Phocas (963--969)[21]. However, he is not an
independent writer but only a copyist who abridged Theophanes Continuatus,
his contemporary. He begins his story with Theophanes Continuatus indication
of the time, but omits the description of the battle between the Bulgarians
and the Croats. In that way he states that Symeon died on May 27, 927.[22]
Therefore, we cannot accept that statement. Symeon Magister does not mention
new independent sources for his statement but just copies and abridges that
of Theophanes Continuatus. However, Theophanes Continuatus expressly writes
that the battle between the Bulgarians and Croats occurred on May 27, 927,
and that Symeon died a few days later when he heard of the defeat of his
army in Croatia. Because Symeon Magister is a copyist of Theophanes
Continuatus, his statement does not have its own independent value but it
has to be interpreted according to its source.

The continuer of Georgius Monachus, called Hamartolus (the Sinner), copied
Symeon Magister's statement in the sixth book of Georgius' work about the
lives of emperors, written in the second half of the tenth century, omitting
the legend about the astronomer John and Emperor Romanus. Accordingly, he
dates the death of Symeon the Great with May 27, during the fifteenth
indiction[23], i.e. 927 A.D. However, the statement of the continuer of
Georgius Monachus does not have an independent value for he is a copyist.
His statement should be valued in the same way as his sources, i.e. Symeon
Magister and Theophanes Continuatus.

Some manuscripts of Georgius Monachus Hamartolus, respectively some
redactions of his work, disagree with the text printed by E. de Muralto and
the Bonn edition. The text of some redactions is similar to the text of
Theophanes Continuatus. Namely after the date (May 27, 927) they mention
Symeon's defeat in Croatia and afterwards his death of a broken heart. The
Munich redaction has the following title of the passage, "About Symeon
Bulgarian, his defeat in Croatia, and his death."[24]. The Vatican redaction
describes the defeat in Croatia almost with the same words as Theophanes
Continuatus so that the date of May 27, 927, refers to the defeat of
Symeon's army in Croatia.[25].

In an ancient Slaveno-Russian translation of Georgius Hamar tolus Chronicle,
there is stated that the Croats defeated Symeon the Great on May 27, 927.
The translation reads, "On the 27th of the month of May, during the
fifteenth indiction, Symeon, Bulgarian Duke, conducted a battle against the
Croats, and, having fought, was defeated, and all under him were slain. Then
attacked by an incurable heart sickness, he perished, being an iniquitous
man in all ... He installed Peter, his son, as duke ... "[26].

We do not have a critical edition either of Georgius Hamartolus Chronicle or
of the addenda written by his continuers. Several redactions, particularly
the Vatican redaction and that one used by the old Russian translator,
indicate first the date, May 27, 927, then describe the battle between
Symeon's army and the Croats, and Symeon's death at the end. Therefore,
there is a possibility that it was thus written in the original manuscript
of the first continuer of Georgius Hamartolus, but that later copyists
omitted to mention the battle between the Bulgarians and the Croats. By
doing so they left an incorrect text according to which Symeon died on May
27, 927. A critical edition of the Chronicle by Georgius Hamartolus and his
continuers should solve this question.

The Russian chronicler Nestor, respectively The Russian Primary Chronicle,
used a redaction of Georgius Hamartolus which stated first the date, then
described Symeon's defeat, and finally his death. As in other cases[27],
Nestor incorrectly changed the fifteenth indiction, which he found in
Georgius' text, into the year 6450 from the world's creation, namely 942 A.
D. According to Georgius' text, Nestor had to change this to the year 6435
from the world's creation, namely 927 A.D. Nestor's text in the English
translation reads, "6450 (942). Symeon attacked the Croats and was beaten by
them. He, then died, leaving Peter his son as Prince of the Bulgarians"[28].

Thus Nestor, when corrected, is also a source which confirms that the Croats
defeated the Bulgarians in 927, i.e. on May 27, 927. Namely Nestor always
mentions for all events only years, omitting days and months.

Western Sources

We have an indirect confirmation in a letter of Pope Leon VI, by which the
Pope approves the decisions of a church synod, held in Split in 928, as well
as in the Minutes of the synod, that the battle between the Bulgarians and
the Croats occurred in 927, and not in 925 or 926. Pope Leon VI, who was
elected in June 928 and died in December of the same year, writes that a
papal mission headed by Cardinal Madalbertus and John, Duke of Chumae[29],
returned to Rome during his reign after being absent for two years[30]. It
means that Madalbertus left Rome in the summer or fall of 926. His journey
across Croatia to Preslav, capital of Bulgaria, took probably two or three
month. Accordingly his mission reached Bulgaria at the end of the summer or
during the fall of 926. At that time, there was no conflict between the
Bulgarians and Croats. Madalbertus did not go to Bulgaria to mediate a peace
between them, but rather in a special mission connected with Bulgaria
itself. The Pope writes,"... to accomplish the work for which they were
authorized, Madalbertus, honorable Bishop, and John, illustrious Duke of
Cumae, returned to us after two years"[31].

In the official Minutes of the Split synod in 928, we read, "Arriving then
on our frontiers, the above mentioned legates went to Bulgaria as ordered by
the apostolic injuction"[32]. The question of peace between the Bulgarians
and the Croats arose afterwards and Madalbertus mediated it while he was in
Bulgaria[33]. The events developed as follows.

After long wars and great success, capturing a larger part of Byzantine
territory in Europe, Symeon the Great proclaimed himself Emperor and took
the title "Emperor of the Bulgarians and Greeks" at the beginning of
925.[34]. According to the juridical reasoning of the time, only the Pope
and the Byzantine Emperor could bestow royal or imperial titles, and an
emperor might be crowned only by a patriarch. Byzantine Emperor Romanus
Lecapenus protested bitterly against Symeon's usurpation of the imperial
title[35]. Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicolas Mysticus, did the
same[36].36 In such a predicament, Symeon begged Pope John X (914-928) to
send him an imperial crown and to recognize the head of the Bulgarian church
as a Patriarch. Naturally, Symeon had to promise to recognize the papal
primacy in the Church. John X accepted Symeon's request and sent a solemn
mission to Bulgaria, headed by Cardinal Madalbertus and John, illustrious
Duke of Cumae[37]. The papal mission reached Bulgaria at the end of the
summer or during the fall of 926, carrying a crown and a scepter with which
they would crown Symeon as Bulgarian Emperor.

When the papal mission arrived in Preslav, Madalbertus started long
negotiations with Symeon and the representatives of the Bulgarian church.
Probably, Madalbertus convoked a church synod in Bulgaria as he later did in
Split, in Croatia, on his way back to Rome in 928. The negotiations
regarding ecclesiastical matters were successful, and Archbishop Leontius
was created Patriarch in Preslav, still during Symeon's reign[38].

Meanwhile, Symeon undertook imposing preparations for his crowing during the
summer of 927. All of a sudden, he decided to wage a war against the Croats.
The reason might have been that Tomislav received and protected the Serbs
who were expelled by Symeon from Rascia[39]. In all probability, however,
the main reason was that Symeon, if crowned by the Papal Legate, feared an
attack from the Byzantine Emperor supported by Tomislav. Emperor Romanus
Lecapenus won the friendship of Tomislav some years previously, handing over
the Byzantine Dalmatia to Tomislav and recognizing him as King of
Croatia[40]. During the summer of 926, Tomislav sent his troops to Italy to
expel Saracens, from the city of Sipontus[41], which belonged to the
Byzantine province of Langobardia. This event could have been a sufficient
proof to Symeon that the Croats took the side of the Byzantine Emperor and
that they would support him actively in the future. Therefore, when in the
next spring, May 927, Symeon sent a strong army under the command of
Alogobotour against the Croats[42], Bulgarians were met by Tomislav in the
mountainous region of Eastern Bosnia. Tomislav crushed them, May 27, 927,
destroying almost the entire Bulgarian army. When Symeon heard of the crush
of his army, seven or eight days after the battle, he suffered a stroke and
died about June 3, 927, without having been crowned with the imperial crown
brought by Madalbertus from Rome. Samuel, Emperor of the second Bulgarian
Empire, died, too, of a heart attack after a defeat on. a battlefield.
Byzantine writers noted down the exact , date of Samuel's defeat by Emperor
Basil II, the Bulgar-slayer (July 29, 1014)[43], omitting to mention the
date of his death. The writers proceeded in the same way as the previous
writers did in the case of Symeon the Great: Byzantine writers considered
the date of Symeon's defeat by the Croats (May 27, 927) more important than
the date of his death.

That the Papal Legate Madalbertus came to Bulgaria to crown Symeon the
Great, as Bulgarian Emperor, we conclude, firstly, from the statements in
the letter of Pope Leon VI and the Minutes of Split church synod in 928,
and, secondly, from the fact that Madalbertus crowned Peter, Symeon's son,
as Bulgarian Emperor in the summer of 927. Both, the papal letter and the
Minutes, speak of important apostolic work which Madalbertus' mission of 926
had in Bulgaria[44]. In 1202 the Bulgarian Emperor, Ivan Kaloyan, expressly
stated, on the basis of old Bulgarian chronicles, that Peter was crowned
with the crown brought from Rome[45]. And, on the basis of Roman registers,
Pope Innocent III replied to Kaloyan that several Bulgarian rulers received
crowns from Rome[46]. Peter, however, might have been crowned with a Roman
crown by Bishop Madalbertus only during a few early months of his reign.
Since at the beginning of the fall of 927, Peter perfected his negotiations
with the Byzantine Empire and married a granddaughter of the Byzantine
Emperor, Romanus Lecapenus on October 8, 927. In the agreement, Byzantium
recognized Peter as Bulgarian Emperor as well as the independence of the
Bulgarian church[47]. Byzantium only removed Patriarch Leontius, appointed
by Rome, and replaced him by Damnianus, a partisan of Byzantium[48]. During
the entire further reign of Peter, there was no possibility that he might be
crowned by a crown from Rome. The only logical conclusion is that he was
crowned by a crown from Rome at the start of his reign while he was hostile
to the Byzantine Empire.

Peace Between Bulgaria and Croatia

All sources which mention the battle between the Bulgarians and the Croats
state that after Symeon's death the Croats, Magyars, and other neighboring
peoples took steps to wage a war against the Bulgarians[49]. That means that
the Bulgarians did not conclude a peace with the Croats while Symeon was
alive as well as that Symeon really died immediately after the defeat in
Croatia. The peace was concluded during the reign of Symeon's son and
successor, Peter (927-969). It was mediated by the Papal Legate Madalbertus
while he was still in Bulgaria as it is written in the Minutes of the Split
church synod of 928 [50]. That occurred during July or August 927 for
Madalbertus was no longer in Bulgaria when the negotiations were perfected
between the Bulgarian Emperor, Peter, and Byzantine Emperor, Romanus
Lecapenus. As we already mentioned, the negotiations were successful. Peter
married the Emperor's granddaughter on October 8, 927, and Bulgaria fell
completely under Byzantine influence.

Until recently we had only a single source, the Acts of the Split church
synod of 928 [51], about the papal mediation for the conclusion of a peace
between the Bulgarians and the Croats. Three years ago, Croatian historian
Dr. Vinko Foretic discovered a manuscript on parchment in the treasury of
the Chapter of the city of Korcula in Croatia. The manuscript is from the
first half of the twelfth century, written about 1130 A.D. Among other
things, the discovered codex has a special redaction of Liber Pontificalis.
The following is written there about Pope John X, "John X ruled twelve
years, two months, and six days. He made a peace between the Bulgarians and
Croats through .his legates, Bishop Madalbertus and Duke John..."[52].

From this statement we have to conclude that Pope John X, hearing of the war
between the Bulgarians and Croats, ordered his mission in Bulgaria to
mediate a peace. The Croatian king Tomislav, probably on the invitation of
the Papal Legate Madalbertus, sent his representatives to Bulgaria who
perfected negotiations and concluded a peace. After the defeat of the
Bulgarians on May 27, 927, and the conclusion of a just and propitious
peace, Croatia reached the zenith of her power during the reign of her first
king Tomislav. At that time she was a very powerful nation in Southeastern
Europe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

[1] Regnum Croatorum, Ch. 9, and Presbyteri Diocleatis, Regnum Sclavorum.
Ch. 9: F. Sisic, ed.. Letopis Popa Dukljanina (Beograd-Zagreb, 1928), p. 306
and 398; V. Mosin, ed., Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina (Zagreb, 1950), p. 54. Cf.
D. Mandic Crvena Hrvatska (Chicago, 1957), p. 1-50.

[2] Cf. C. Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, Ch. 32, ed. Gy.
Moravesik and R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), p. 152-60; C. Jirecek,
Geschichte der Serben (Gotha, 1911), vol. I, p. 111-254; D. Mandic "Hrvatski
sabor na Duvaniskom polju god. 753," Hrvatska Revija (Buenos Aires), vol.
VII (1957), p. 12-19, 38.

[3] Cf. F. Sisic, Geschichte der Kroaten (Zagreb, 1917), p. 121-49, F.
Sisic, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara (Zagreb, 1925), p. 401-30;
D. Mandic, Crvena Hrvatska. p. 107-16.

[4] Cl. W. N. Slatarski, Geschichte der Bulgaren. (Leipzig, 1918), vol. I;
V. N. Zlatarski, Istorija na Balgarskata Drzava: Parvito Balgarsko Carstvo
(Sofia. 1927). vol. I. part 2; S. Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian
Empire (London, 1930). Hereafter Runcinam, History.

[5] C. Porphyrogenitus, op. cit., Ch. 31, p. 150.

[6] "Rex autem Thomislavus, fortis iuvenis et robustus bellator, plurima
bella cum eo [rege Ungarinorum] commisit et semper eum in fugam convertit,"
Sisic, ed Letopis Popa Dukljanina, p. 310; Mosin, ed., op. cit., p. 58.

[7] C. Porphyrogenitus, op. cit., Ch. 32, p. 1.58., "???? ?ò? ????ò? ???
??????? ???????? ?? ????? ????????? ??? ????????? ???? ??? '??????????? ???
?????????, ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? X???????." - English
translation, ibidem, p. 159. We do not agree with the starting phrase of the
translation.

[8] F. Racki, Documenta historiae Chroaticae periodum antiquant
illustrantia. Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol.
VII (Zagreb, 1877), p. 392.

[9] V. Klaic, Povijest Hrvata (Zagreb, 1899), vol. I, p. 75.

[10] W. N. Zlatarski, Geschichte der Bulgaren, vol. I, p. 58.

[11] F. Sisic, Povijest Hrvata, p. 422.

[12] S. Runciman, History. p. 176.

[13] G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates (Munich, 1942),
p. 215.

[14] Cf. Hen. Stephani. Thesaurus Graecae linguae (Paris, 1829), vol. IV, p.
817; Demetrakon D., Mega lexikon thes Hellenikes glosses (Athens, 1938),
vol. IV, p. 3531; The Classic Greek Dictionary (Chicago: Follett, 1954), p.
341.

[15] Cf. A. Pertusi, Constantino Porfirogenito, De Thematibus, Studii e
Testi vol. 160. (Vatican, 1952), p. 39 ff.

[16] J. Bakker, ed., Theophanes Continuatus, Lib. VI. De Romano Lacapemo
(Bonn, 1838), Ch. 20 ff., p. 411 ff, "???? ?? ????, ?????? ???òó??,
?????????? ??, ?????? ????? ????????????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?????????,
??? ???????? ???' ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??' ????? ??????? ?????
????????. ? ??????. ????? ????????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?????, ????????." -
S. Runciman, Romanus Lecapenus (London, 1929), p. 96, n. 1, understood our
writer so that he, the writer, asserted that Symeon personally led his army
against the Croats. However that is not correct. Theophanes Continuatus, as
well as other Byzantine chroniclers, attributes Symeon all the deeds
performed by his army leaders under his command. That our writer did not
think that Symeon personally led his army against the Croats, it is evident
from the fact that he, the writer, asserts, on the one hand, that Symeon
died in Bulgaria, and, on the other hand, that the battle was fought in
Croatia.

[17] K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzant. Literatur (Munich, 1897), p.
124-26; G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica (Budapest, 1942), vol. I, 340.42.

[18] J. Bekker, ed., Georgii Cedreni Compendium Hist. (Bonn, 1839), vol. II,
p. 307 ff.. ""???? ?? ????, ??????????? ??', ???????? ?????? ó ???
?????????? ????? ????????? ???? ????????, ??? ???????? ???' ????? ???
???????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????????... ó
?????? ?? ????????? ??b???? ???? ?????????? ?????... ?? ???? ????? ????,
??????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ??????, ??? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????????
???????????? ???? ????????? ???????????." -" - Hereafter Cedrenus.

[19] Th. Buttner-Wobst, ed., Joannes Zonaras, Epitomae Hist. (Bonn, 1897),
vol. III, lib. XVI, Ch. 18, p. 473, "`? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ? ??????,
???? ?? ???????, ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ????????. ???? ???? ??? ??????
??? ???????? ???????????, ???' ?????? ??' ???????, ??? ???? ??? ????
?????????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????... ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??
????????, ???????? ????????. ?? ?' ?? ???????? ? ?????? ??????????, ? ???
????????? ???? ???? ??????..." - Hereafter Zonaras.

[20] K. Krumbacher, op. cit., p. 140-46; Moravcsik, op. cit., p. 140-45 and
196-200.

[21] K. Krumbacher, op. cit., p. 136-38; Moravcsik, op. cit., p. 321-23.

[22] Symeon Magister, De Const. Porphyr. et Romano Lacapeno, Ch. 33, in J.
Bekker, ed., Theophanes Continuatus. op. cit., p. 740.

[23] E. de Muralto, ed. Georgii Monachi dicti Hamartoli, Chronicon
(Petrograd. 1559), p. 830; Georgii Monachi, Vitae recent. imperatorum, De
Const. Porphyr. et Romano Lacapeno. Ch. 28, in J. Bekker, ed., Theophanes
Continuatus, op. cit., p. 904.

[24] E. de Muralto, ed., op. cit., p. 830, n. r. 9.

[25] Ibidem. u. r. 10. - The text given by Racki (op. cit., p. 392) is
composed artificially and does not correspond with the text given by
Muralto.

[26] 26) V. M. Istrin', Hronika Georgija Amartola v' drevnem'
slavjanorusskom' perevode (Petrograd, 1920), Tom' I, p. 560, "Maia meseca v'
27 indikta 15 Semen', knjaz' Bolgarskij, na Horvaty podvize voinu i sestupu
byvsu, pobezden' byv', i sustaja pod nim' vsa issece. Tem' neiscelnoe
bolezniju po srce jat', pogybe, bezakonnovav' vsue. Petra, sina svoego,
postavi knjazem' ..."

[27] Cf. S. H. Cross and 0. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, The Russian Primary
Chronicle (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), p. 30-33; D. S. Lihacev, Povest'
vremennyh let (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950). vol. II. p. 288.

[28] D. S. Lihacev, op. cit., vol. I, p. 33, "V leto 6450. Semeon' ide na
Hravaty i pobezen' byst' Hravaty, i umre, ostaviv' Petra knjaza, syna
svoego, Bol'garoni " English translation S. H. Cross and 0. P.
Sherbowitz-Wetzor, op. cit., p. 72.

[29] Cumae, an ancient Greek colony in Campania, Italy, between Naples and
Gaeta on the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea. Cumae was an important city during
the Middle Ages, being the center of the Cumaean Dukedom (Ducatus Cumae).
The city of Cumae (Kûmah) is also mentioned by Arabian geographer Idris in
1154 A.D. (cf. M. Amari and C. Schiaparelli, L'Italia descritta nel "Libro
del Re Ruggero" compilato da Idrisi, Rome, 1883, p. 95).

[30] Racki, op. cit., p. 194 and F. Sisic, Enchiridion fontium historiae
croaticae (Zagreb, 1914), vol. I, p. 221, " ... iniuncti sibi operis causa
Bulgariam petentes Romanorum legati, Madalbertus uenerabilis episcopus et
Johannes dux illustris, dux Cumas. ad nos post biennium deuenerunt."
Hereafter Sisic, Enchiridion. Bishop Madalbertus was papal legate in
Byzantium in 933 A.D., cf. , ??????? (Athens, 1885), vol. II, p. 395.

[31] Cf. n. 30.

[32] Racki, op. cit., p. 195 and Sisic, Enchiridion, p. 222, "Perucnientes
igitur supra fati legati ad confinia nostra et, sicut illis opus iniunctum
apostolica iussione fuit, Bulgariam perexerunt."

[33] Cf. n. 50, 51, and 52.

[34] Cf. Slatarski, op. cit., p. 58; Runciman, History, p. 173; Ostrogorsky,
op. cit., p. 214.

[35] Romanus Lecapenus, "Epistolae," in ??????? (Athens), vol. I (1884), p.
40-45; V. N. Zlatarski, "Pismata na Romana Lecapina do Simeona," Sbornik' za
narodni umotvoreniya (Sofia), vol. XII (1896), p. 205-211; vol. XIII (1896),
p. 8-11.

[36] Nicolaus Mysticus, Epistolae, 30 and 31, Migne, Patrol. Graeca (Paris,
1863), vol. III. col. 18.5 ff.

[37] Cf. n. 30.

[38] Cf. n. 48.

[39] Serbian zupan Zacharias fled from Symeon to Croatia in the spring of
925 A.D.: C. Porphyrogenitus, op. cit., Ch. 32, p. 159, "Then Zacharias took
fright and fled to Croatia, and the Bulgarians ... entered Serbia and took
away with them the entire folk, both old and young, and carried them into
Bulgaria, though a few escaped away and entered Croatia; and the country was
left deserted."

[40] That occurred in 923 A.D. I am preparing a special article about that.

[41] "Hoc anno 19261 comprendit Michael rex Sclavorum civitatem Sipontum,
mense Julio, die sanctae Felicitatis, secunda feria, indictione XV," Annales
Reneventani (ed. Pertz), MGH SS, vol. III, p. 175; Lupi Protospatharii
Chronicon, MGH SS, vol. V, p. 54; Annales Barenses, ad an. 928, MGH SS, vol.
III, p. 52; Racki, op. cit., p. 393. - The chronicler, who registered the
event immediately after it happened, heard that the army of Croatian king
occupied Sipontus. Because the army was led by Michael, duke of Zachumlia,
the chronicler thought that he, Michael, was the king of the Slavs ICroatsl.

[42] The name of Alogobotour, Bulgarian army leader, means in
Bulgaro-Turanian "the head of heroes." Cf. Runciman, History, p. 285.

[43] Cf. Cedrenus, vol. II, p. 458; Zonaras, vol. III, lib. XVII, Ch. 9, p.
563 ff.

[44] Cf. n. 30 and 32.

[45] Innocentii III Registrorum, lib. V. an 1202, u. 115. Migne, Patrologia
Latina, vol. 214, col. 1112 ff., "in primis petimus ab Ecclesia Romana matre
coronam et honorem, tamquam dilectus filius, secundum quod imperatores
nostri veteres habuerunt. Unus fait Petrus, alius fuit Samuel et alii qui
eos in imperio praecesserunt, sicut in libris nostris invenimus esse.
scriptum ..."

[46] Ibidem, n. 116, col. 1114, "Petisti vero humiliter ut coronam tibi
Ecciesia Romana concederet, sicut illustris memoriae Petro, Samueli et aliis
progenitoribus in libris tuis legitur concessiese. Nos igitur . . . regestra
nostra perlegi fecimus diligenter; ex quibus evidenter comperimus quod in
terra tibi subjecta multi reges fuerunt coronati ... "

[47] Cf. W. N. Slatarski, op. cit.. p. 59; Runciman, History, p. 179-82.

[48] According to Sinodik carja Borila (ed. Popruzenko, Odesa 1899), the
first Bulgarian patriarch was Leontius, residing in Preslav. However in the
list of Bulgarian Archbishops (V. N. Zlatarski, "Bulgarski
Arkhiepiskopi-Patriarsi priez Pervoto Carstvo", Izviesciya na Istoricheskoto
Druzhestvo v. Sofia, vol. VI), Damnianus from Dristar is listed as the first
Bulgarian patriarch. In reality, the first Bulgarian patriarch was Leontius,
but Byzantium did not recognize him because he was appointed by Rome. The
writer of the list of Bulgarian Archbishops, a Byzantine partisan, did not
consider Leontius a lawful Bulgarian patriarch and, therefore, started the
list with patriarch Damnianus.

[49] Cf. n. 16 to 23.

[50] The Minutes of Split Church Synod of 928, in Racki, op. cit., p. 195,
and Sisic, Enchiridion. p. 222, "Quique peracto negotio pacis inter Bulgaros
et Chroatos, repetito itinere ad nos uenerabilis Madalbertus episcopus, in
ciuitatem spalatensem adueniens ... " According to the Minutes Madalbertus
mediated a peace between the Bulgars and the Croats while he was still in
Bulgaria. Afterwards he returned to Split by the same way by which he went
to Bulgaria. Cf. n. 32.

[51] Letter of Pope Leon VI (Racki, op. cit., p. 196 ff. and Sisic,
Enchiridion, p. 223 ff.) and the Minutes of Split Church Synod of 928 (cf.
n. 30 and 32).

[52] V. Foretic, "Korculanski kodeks 12. stoljeca," Starine (Zagreb:
Yugoslav Academy, 1956), vol. 46, p. 30, "Johannes X sedit annos XII, menses
II, dies VI. Hic fecit pacem inter Bulgaros et Chroatos per legatos suos
Madelbertum scilicet episcopum, et Johannem ducem ... "


Btw: the "?????" signes are probably cyrillc letters that my PC doesn't supports so they were converted into question marks. ;)

Siena
28-05-2004, 17:05
Originally posted by Drake Maethor
@Siena

Hey Siena! BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MY SOURCES SAY!!!
You should read my posts better! We are in the same side here man! :p But yeah I know, this thread is so damn big...
But hey, LOOK, what my sources say is that they, the Lithuanian mounted warriors, fought with spears as a main weapon and that they could also throw them! (BTW, I've written 2 posts about the Lithuanian tactics, have you read the first one?).
But they also say (AND NOW READ WELL!) that when the fighting was unfitted for their mounted tactics ("If the battlefield was unsuited for massed cavalry actions"), they would unmount (ONLY THEN!!!) and use their bows (ONLY WHILE THEY WERE UNMOUNTED!!!). And I said that that was an example of how fond of skirmishing tactics they were.
[B]

@Drake Maethor,
I would say from my impressions of reading Lithuanian history, that Lithuanians were horsemen, armed with spears, swords, axes, carried shields and wore either chainmail or plate armor.
Their shield was trapezoid shape, which was also used by Prussians I think, and sometimes adopted by Teutons.
Their battlefield tactics were - quick mounted charges, as you say, sometimes combined with quick withdrawals.
Dismounted , I imagine - they must have used same weapons - spears, swords, axes, maces - maybe occasionaly bows, but mostly spears as ranged weapon....

Nevertheless, you are right - they were fond of ambushes and skirmishes. However, they were not shy of meeting enemy face to face - and winning most of the time, by the way.


Originally posted by Drake Maethor
[B]@Everybody

I was thinking the same thing...
This week I've learned many things about Lithuania.
Many things that I wasn't aware of and I've found really interesting. Now, for example, I know that they got good beer :p , that they had an unique culture in the medieval times and I know also a bit about their very interesting history. But we usually have read the other side of it. I recall myself reading some months ago about the Teutonic knights and how they fought against pagans north of their territory! 'Pagans at north of Germany??' I said to myself... 'wow! that sounds interesting!' yeah I found that interesting, but I really didn't imagine that those Pagans were a whole nation: Lithuania.
A nation I knew very very little about.
Yes, tt is like a little jewel hidden inside big Europe (jewel specially for the beer! :D and hidden because we know very little about them. If you that live in Europe don't know many things about it then imagine me that live at the other side of the Atlantic!).
And one of those good surprises was the unique way their medieval inhabitants used to fight. I think that should be really in this game!
And of course I'm not the only one!
Then, why don't we prepare a good mail and write to our good developers about it and the very good reasons for why it should be included? And then of course we all who support the idea sign it. It is worth trying! Because I think that if they don't add this unique unit then they, Lithuanians, won't be really represented!
Hell! Can you imagine Scotland without Highlanders??? Can you imagine it without Highlanders dressed in their tartans fighting against the English knights????
Now I cannot imagine Lithuania without their pagan warriors!!!
Warriors mounted in their horses fighting and riding against the Teutonic knights!!!
[B]

all I can say to that is:
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
And I agree to every word you said here.
I could never understand - how can game developers and movie makers miss such a wonderful source - such unique history - like Lithuanian medieval history...


and regarding beer :)
I live in USA, and I tasted all kinds of beer here. American beer can be safely skipped - it just ****s, inlcuding American Budweizer. The best bear I could find here was imported Czech Pilsner.
However, nothing can match Lithuanian "Svyturys" beer :)
It actually won a first prize in the world, I believe....
:cheers:

Krum The Terrible
28-05-2004, 17:42
WOW man that's GREAT. THANKS:D .Btw do you think that the most powerfull emporer is South-Eastern Europe or even in whole Eastern Europe will die becouse of one defeat.:cool:
P.S.
tsar Samuil didn't die because of his defeat, but becouse he
saw all of his solgiers blinded by this a******* Byzantines.
:angry:

Finellach
28-05-2004, 18:15
I think he succumbed to the stress much like many people do today. His death was not only the result of defeat against King Tomislav, but also of all sorts of different circumstances that came in relativly short period.

I think Byznatines were quite smart. For example imagine if King Tomislav and Emperor Symeon united their forces. ;)
They would crush "Byzantine Empire" and believe me the history would be much different. Not to mention there wouldn't be any "Great Schism". ;)

As it turned out Byznatines were quite clever making an alliance with King Tomislav and getting a powerful ally in their western border not to mention they deprived Bulgarians and any other nation that wanted independance of their help.

chefo
28-05-2004, 19:26
Aye, I didn't visit the forum too often:)... as for posting more, I'll see what I can do...


Just a couple of notes:

1.) Don't drink beer:D, try wine instead;)...

2.) Simeon of Bulgaria was crowned Emperor in 914 by the Byzantine Patriarch. That was the reason why until his death he thought Romanus an usurper of his right. Most scholars I've read think the coronation in 914 was a scam but there is evidence both ways.

3.) It is quite probable that the defeat in Croatia, although significant, was not quite as dramatic as Runciman portrays it. The simple reasoning is that even as Simeon was launching his invasion of Croatia, he was mustering troops for his last campaign against Constantinople. The very year after the defeat at the hands of Tomislav, the Bulgarian armies ravished eastern Thrace and the environs of Constantinople before the signing of the peace treaty in 928. The very fact that the Peter came away as a Romanus recognized Emperor, with much of Thrace and Thessaly still under Bulgarian control shows that he had negotiated from a position of strength.

4.) A final note is that figures for army strengths in that period are highly exaggerated. I am sorry to say it, but if Tomislav had 160,000 troops all of Europe from the La Manche to the Ural would be called Croatian Empire nowadays. In reality most European armies were invariably small with the exception of the Byzantines who could put 30,000-50,000 men in the field. Any army larger than that would simply starve itself out. The Germans defeated the Magyars with 8,000 cavalry in the mid 10th century and at that time the Magyars were the terror of Europe. So, the point is, always doubt figures like that. For crying out loud, some Arab sources claim there were half-a-million Byzantines at Manzikert! While, they were probably hardly more than 40,000 if that many...


Chefo

Krum The Terrible
28-05-2004, 19:39
I speak as Bulgarian and in accordance with Bulgarian history. So from this point of view they don't look very clever.

Gorgoroth
28-05-2004, 20:10
Whaaaaat? Beer & wine are both very very liked by Gorgy! :D