[en] History

[Traveller]

Interesting news, Mirco! Do you have more info? Like f.e. where exactly are these exponents taken from (in the sea)? From Cleopatra's palace or somewhere else? And are there any photos?

Btw, I received a message, concerning this thread. And I would like to note and clear one thing - If I translate something, it doesn't mean I fully agree with it. It doesn't even mean I agree with it at all! So if someone might have felt offended by something I have translated - I'm sorry. But I'll give you one advice - don't take history too seriously and don't get hurt by it! "History is just a collective hallucination", as I had translated somewhere (maybe in the Macedonian thread). And also another thing - "history is one of the main crutches of nationalism and politics" (or was it of propaganda?). I.e. history is not an accurate science and even the most "accurate proofs" for it could and are interpreted differently by different people, in order that the "proofs" fit best to your own way of thinking or even your own goals. Actually, there's one thing somewhat connected with this, which I wanted to translate from some time now. It's the introduction of one book (of the here-famous Bozhidar Dimitrov :wink: ), which mentions how history could and is basically a free philosophy. When I have time (not earlier than next year) I'll translate it... So, what I mean to say is that history is not an accurate science, it could be interpreted in many ways, so don't be too serious and excited about it (my personal advice, at least) and always have something in mind (and if you want to work seriously with it - always check and compare as much as info as possible, and again - always have something in mind about it)!

[Traveller]

Btw, Xuca, if you could read and understand a little Bulgarian, you could check also this site (http://ald-bg.narod.ru/vladeteli.htm), which includes some info for a lot of the rulers of the greater Christian Balkan nations.

[Mircoslavux]

breaking news:
Italian police caught 74 years old grave thief in Rom.. They found cca 9000 art-objects in his car, The founds coming from Antic - Rom and "Etrusc" 's era.

:go:

[Elvain]

breaking news:
Italian police caught 74 years old grave thief in Rom.. They found cca 9000 art-objects in his car, The founds coming from Antic - Rom and "Etrusc" 's era.


:eek: :wtf:
Though I don't believe in him... thanks God they caught him :go:

[Traveller]

Yeah, it's good they caught him! I wish they would catch also all these idiots like him in here too. So many treasures are disappearing... :sad:

[Traveller]

A few days ago I prepared and posted one list of Bulgar titles and names in another forum (note: Bulgar is not Bulgarian, Bulgarian=Slavs+Bulgars+some Thracians) and I thought maybe I should post it here too. And with this I encourage again everyone to post, paste or whatever, something about history! Cuz it's getting stupid with around 90% of the stuff to be only about Bulgaria!


==================================================


In alphabetical order:

Bagain – Lower noble rank, the so called “fed people” of the khan, used by the khan’s authority for restriction of the boils influence. The backbone of the armoured cavalry {2}; Lower officers (this title has many variations such as biri-bagain, batir-bagain, bagir-bagain, bagatur-bagain) {2}; Title from the time of the First Bulgarian state. It’s met in the Bulgarian inscriptions from the IX century. It signifies a commander or a leader of a small military detachment. The bagains are bolyars, which stand lower than the boils. {3};
Bagatur - (Turkic) – literally “brave man”. Title, given by the Bulgars to the representatives of the aristocracy, which have glorified themselves in battles. {1}; It literally means a brave champion, a hero. It was used as a lower noble rank, again under the khan’s auspices, basis of the unarmoured cavalry or the horse archers. {2}; A warrior caste, the heavily armed horsemen, the core of the army (as an analogy with the western knights and the Japanese samurais) {2}; A title from the ruling system from the time of the First Bulgarian state. Given mainly for military merits. Used in the Bulgarian inscriptions usually in combination with other titles. {3};
Bagatur-boila-kolober - (Bulgar) – High post in the early-medieval Bulgarian state, which signifies a military leader, belonging to the class of the boils, who showed courage in battles. {1};
Boila-tarkan (vulias-tarkan) - (Bulgar) – Title, given in the Bulgarian Khanate to a governor of a big border region. {1}; Bulgar title. It was given in the First Bulgarian state to the second son of the ruler. Together with the class belonging, it shows also ranking position, as the title tarkan signifies that its bearer is performing the duties of a deputy of the ruler in a particular region. {3};
Boils (bolyars) - (Bulgar) – General name for the higher class of the Bulgarian aristocracy. It passed from medieval Bulgaria to other Slavic states (Serbia, Russia) and in the XIV-XV century also in Walachia and Moldavia. {1}; High noble rank, usually these families were 100 and every boil family governed one region of the khanate. After Kniaz Boris, who killed 52 boil families, these families decreased and gradually decayed. {2}; Bulgar title, equal to the Slavic “bolyarin”. Given to representatives of the ruling feudal class in the time of the First Bulgarian state. In some sources it’s mentioned in combination with other titles and shows the class position of the official person. From other sources: The title means “notable”, “high-ranked” and shows belonging to the highest class of the Bulgarian aristocracy. It’s a hereditary title. {3};
Bori-tarkan - (Bulgar) – An official title of a governor of a region in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. {1}; Commander of the heavily armoured cavalry, in later time a commandant of an “aul” (fortress) {2}; Bulgar title from the First Bulgarian state. Familiar is bori-tarkan Radislav, who welcomed the disciples of Cyril and Methodius after they were expelled from Velikomoravia. {3};
Chigot – (Bulgar) – literally “sword-bearer”. A warrior from the bodyguard unit of the early-medieval Bulgarian khans and tsars. {1};
Great boils – There were 4 great boils (“veliki boili” on Bulgarian) according to Fadlan, respectively 6 of them according to K. Porfirogenet – most probably their number was increased with the enhancing of the state. After the conversion the 4 of them were probably increased to 6, as by obvious reasons the khana-boila-kolober fell off. It could be presumed that the three new ones were the minik (head of the royal stables) and two, which bore the title sampsis (at the council in 869-870 there were two with this title – Pressian and Alexius Hunol). {2}; 6 high counselors of the khan, they sit on his right side. {2};
Ichirgu-bagain – Bulgar title from the time of the First Bulgarian state. It is mentioned for the first time in the second half of the IX century when it was given to an unknown military leader. {3};
Ichirgu-boila (churgubilia) - (Bulgar) – High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state, governor of its “interior region”. It held the third place in the state’s hierarchy after the ruler and the kavhan. {1}; First and most important boil, taking care of the interior of the khanate. {2}; There are reports that he carried out internal political missions, as well as taking care of administering of regions. {2}; Bulgar title from the time of the First Bulgarian state. It is know in Slavic translation as “churgobilia”. It’s mentioned in the beginning of the IX century. It was given to the closest persons to the Bulgarian ruler, which performed the duty of governing the inner fortresses of the capital. Except military, the bearers of this title performed also juridical functions and took part in diplomatic missions. At the time of Khan Krum (803-814) this title was given to the bolyar Tsok and in the first half of the X century – the bolyar Mostich. {3};
Ichirgu-kolober – Bulgar military title from the time of the First Bulgarian state. It is mentioned in one of Omurtag’s inscriptions. {3};
Kanasubigi, Iuvigi Khan – Title of the Bulgarian rulers in the first half of the IX century. The name corresponds to the Slavic words “velik” (great), “preslaven” (most glorious). It is mentioned in memorial inscriptions from the time of Khan Omurtag (814-831), Khan Malamir (831-836) and Khan Pressian (836-852). {3};
Kanartikin (Kana-irthituin) – (Bulgar) – Title of the heir to the crown of the Bulgarian khan, also used after the conversion. {1}; The first-born son of the khan and the future successor to the throne. {2}; The eldest tarkan (it’s not a title of the heir to the throne by rule, but most probably it was given at the moment of the delegating of the heir (as for example Kniaz Kiril of Preslav was a regent of Simeon II, but regent is not the title of the kniaz’s brother)) {2}; Title of the Bulgarian heir to the crown in the period of the First Bulgarian state. {3};
Kana-bagatur - (Bulgar) – Official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. {1};
Kana-boila-kolober – (Bulgar) – High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. It is presumed that it was given to a military commander, whose detachment enters first in a fight with the enemy. {1};
Kandidat – Title in the First Bulgarian state, member of the personal guard of the ruler, institution, borrowed from Byzantium. From the time of Khan Omurtag it is known the kandidat Turdacis. {3};
Kavhan - (Bulgar) – High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. Its bearer was the first assistant in the ruler’s governing and held the second place in the hierarchy. {1}; The highest title after the khan’s. First deputy and assistant. In a time of war he commanded the armies in the khan’s absence. This title is preserved until 1018. {2}; Bulgar title, given to representatives of the most notable Bulgar families. It was transferred also hereditary. Its bearer performed important administrative functions (usually as a governor of a region). In war times he was given command of parts of the khan’s army. In the time of Khan Omurtag (814-831) kavhan was now the second person in the state after the ruler. More familiar names, which bore this title, were Iratais (by Khan Krum), Isbul (by Omurtag, Malamir and Pressian), Todor (by Tsar Simeon I), Dometian (by Tsar Samuil) and others. {3};
Khagan - (Turkic) – Title of supreme leader among the Turkic nations. Equal by importance to “great khan” (“iuvigi khan”), which was the title of the Bulgarian rulers in the pagan period. {1};
Khan – The ruler of medieval Bulgaria. This title was until 864, replaced with the title kniaz and in 927 with tsar. {2}; Ruler, monarch. Originally the title signified a chief of a tribe. Later – a kniaz’s (prince) title and subsequently – ruler’s title of many eastern nations (Tatars and others). The power of the khan was given by heritage to the first-born son. His authority was unlimited. It was considered to have a divine origin. The Bulgar rulers kept the title until 864 (until the conversion to Christianity). Replaced with the title tsar. From other sources: In the latest researches it’s considered that the title is “kan” (from “kun”/”кън” – blood) – a leader of blood relatives. In line with this it’s now also considered that it’s not equal to the title khagan, meaning khan of the khans. The Bulgarian ruler bears the title khan, as in the inscriptions from the VII-IX century it is “kanasubigi” – great khan. An older thesis exists, which spells out the title as “kana su bigi” – the kana master of forces. In the foreign sources the Bulgarian ruler is mentioned as “archon”, “igimon”, “rex”, “kirios”, which are translated as kniaz, chief, master. The title “kanasubigi” disappears from the inscriptions after Khan Malamir. After the acceptance of the Christianity by Khan Boris the title of the Bulgarian ruler is replaced with the title kniaz, coming from the Indo-European “kuneng” – tribal chief, elder. The power of the khan is practically unlimited, as he has the functions of a military leader, lawgiver, judge and high priest. The power itself is viewed as given to him by God, for which signifies the phrase “ek teu archon” – put by God, but in the sense put by heaven – a formula met also among the Turkic nations. According to the sources, the power by the Bulgarians is transferred by birth, i.e. by heritage and by the right of the first-born son. But in the Bulgarian history there are a number of examples, in which these rules were not followed. {3};
Kolober – The priest society. Many ranks exist also of this title, but unfortunately there is no accurate data for their ranking. They sit on the left side of the khan. {2};
Komit – [Note: This title was put to use in the time of Khan Omurtag, i.e. after the establishment of Danubian Bulgaria] Title, given to regional governors from the IX to the XI century. Borrowed from Byzantium at the time of Khan Omurtag (814-831). Its bearer combined both the administrative and the military power in his entrusted region – komitat. Better known bearers of this title are: Taridin – governor of the Bregalnitsa region, Dameta – of the Devol region, Dristur – of the Struma region, and Nikola – of the Sredets region. {3};
Kopan – Bulgar title, given to high military commanders, close associates of the khan. A bearer of this title in the time of Khan Omurtag (814-831) was Okors. {3};
Minik - (Bulgar) – High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian khanate (tsardom). Its bearer took care for the ruler’s stables and commanded the cavalry. {1};
Oglu-tarkan (olgu-tarkan) - (Bulgar) – High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state of a governor of a big region. {1}; Bulgar title, given in the time of the First Bulgarian state to the highest dignitaries. {3};
Sampsis – At the council in 869-870 there were two with this title – Pressian and Alexius Hunol. {2}; Bulgar title, given to representatives of the Bulgar aristocracy, performing diplomatic and other missions. {3};
Shaman - (Turkic) – Priest in the pagan religions of the Turkic-nomadic nations, also by the Bulgars. {1};
Tarkan - (Bulgar) – High official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. Its bearer was usually a governor of a border region. {1}; Commander of 1 000 horsemen (“thousander”) {2}; The high officers (this title has many variations like bori-tarkan, tumen-tarkan, tarkan; probably every one of them was responsible for a definite number of sabers) {2}; Bulgar military title, given mainly to representatives of the high capital aristocracy. It’s usually met combined with another title: bori-tarkan, zhupan-tarkan, oglu-tarkan etc. {3};
Zera-Tarkan - (Bulgar) – Governor of a border region in the early-medieval Bulgarian state. {1}; Official title of persons with military functions on the First Bulgarian state. Known is zera-tarkan Onegavon, who drowned in the river Tissa. {3};
Zhupan-tarkan - (Bulgar) – Official title in the early-medieval Bulgarian khanate (tsardom) of a governor of a Slavic region. {1}; The zhupan – K. Porfirogenet says that this was an elder by the Serbs. Therefore, the zhupan-tarkan is most probably an elder, who was approved by the khan to administrate his tribe (something like a vassal). {2}; Bulgar military title. According to the existing in the First Bulgarian state military hierarchy, it was placed second after the boila-tarkan. Known bearer of this title was Okhsun, who’s mentioned in one of Omurtag’s inscriptions. {3};


High (administrative/official) ranking (the khan and the great boils):

1. Khan (khagan, kanasubigi)
2. Kavhan
3. Ichirgu-boila
4. Kana-boila-kolober (falls away after the Christianization)
5. Kanartikin
6. Minik
7. 2 Sampsises

Lower (military) ranking:

1. Boila-tarkan
2. Zhupan-tarkan
3. …


Bibliography legend (secondary sources):
{1} – History textbook for 11th grade by publishing house “Anubis”
{2} – Internet (Military-historical forum “Boina Slava (http://forum.boinaslava.net/showthread.php?t=4840&highlight=%F2%E8%F2%EB%E8) ”)
{3} – Electronic encyclopedia “History of Bulgaria” by publishing house “Sirma”


================================================== =


Old Bulgar dignities

According to Petur Dobrev the Bulgars come to this side of the Danube with a developed state structure, in which there are 37 dignities. At least those are we know of, but they may have been more. We draw information about them from different stone inscriptions, in which Bulgarian officials are mentioned, as well as from foreign chroniclers. Unfortunately, their titles were written on Greek or with Greek letters and in the worst case they were translated according to their Byzantine correspondences. Thus for example the komits appear – throught the Byzantine influence (from Latin “comes”) and the kandidats (spatarius or protospatarius). In other cases there are difficulties to determine whether it is a name or a title. For example, the title boritarkan of the governor of Belgrade, who welcomed the disciples of Cyril and Methodius coming from Velikomoravia to Bulgaria, is written by Teophilakt of Ohrid as a personal name – Boritarkan. In another case it is not clear if “tortuna pile zhoapan” is a title or is it the “pile zhoapan Tortuna”. Despite these difficulties with a great accuracy could be restored the names and meaning of these 37 titles or dignities (ranks). It is also not completely clear if they are offices, classes, military ranks or combinations of the three. Their numeration is given by Beshevliev. The explanation of the titles is of Petur Dobrev.


Inscription № 59 of kanasubigi Omurtag:
“Kanasubigi Omurtag: the kopan Korsis was my “fed man”. When he went to the army, he drowned in the river Dniepr. He was from the Chakarar family.”

Inscription № 60 of kanasubigi Omurtag:
“Kanasubigi Omurtag: the zera tarkan Negavon was my “fed man”. When he went to the army, he drowned in the river Tissa. He was from the Kubiar family.”

Inscription № 64 of kanasubigi Omurtag:
“Kanasubigi Omurtag. The bagatur bagain Slavnas was my “fed man” and when he got ill he died.”

Inscription № 66 of kanasubigi Omurtag:
“Kanasubigi Omurtag: the kandidat Turdachis was my “fed man”. He died inside.” (Kandidat is a Byzantine title, given to spatariuses and protospatariuses.)

Inscription № 58 of kanasubigi Malamir:
“Kanasubigi Malamir, from God ruler. His old boila, kavhan Isbul, made this fountain and gave it to the ruler. And the ruler gave to the Bulgarians a lot of food and drink and to the boils and the bagains he gave large gifts. May God honour the ruler from God to live together with kavhan Isbul many years.”

The Hambarli inscription № 47 of kanasubigi Krum:
“...I made my brother, and the strategus Leon to be his subordinate. From Beroia … Dultroini is first for the right side the ichirgu boila Tuk, and the strateguses Vardan and Iani to be his subordinates. For the left side of my sarakt [sarakt was the name for the Bulgarian state], for Anhialo, Debelt, Sozopol, Ranuli chief is Iratais, the boila kavhan, and Kordil and Grigora his subordinated strateguses.”

Inscription № 13 of kanasubigi Malamir:
“(Kanasubigi Malamir) from God ruler. My grandfather Krum found with us these works… My father the ruler Omurtag, as concluding a 30 years peace, lived well with the Greeks. And I lived well, but the Greeks devastated our lands and the ruler Malamir, who ruled together with kavhan Isbul, went to war with the Greeks and destroyed the fortress of Provat and the fortress of Burdizon in the lands of the Greeks and acquired all glory. And he came to Philipopolis and the Greeks fled. And then kavhan Isbul, together with the glorified ruler made a meeting with Philipopolians.”

Inscription №14 of kanasubigi Pressian at Philippi:
“Pressian of God ruler of the many Bulgarians sent kavhan Isbul, by giving him an army, the ichirgu boila and the kana boila kolober. And the kavhan at the Smolians…”

Inscription № 69 of kanasubigi Malamir:
“Kanasubigi Malamir: Chepa, bagatur boila kolober was my “fed man”. He got ill and died inside.”

Konstantin Bagrianorodni [“Mantle-born”?] writes in “For the governing” for the war of Boris-Mikhail I with the Serbs: “The Serbs inflicted upon him such a defeat that they captured and chained his son Vladimir and twelve great boils”, but in his work “For the ceremonies” he writes only for six great boils.

Inscription № 48 from the village of Narush of tsar Simeon:
“In the year 6412 (904) from the Creation of the world, indiktion 7, a border between the Bulgarians and the Romeans by the from God ruler of the Bulgarians Simeon, olgu tarkana Teodor and komita Dristar.”

From these inscriptions and from other data the assumption could be made that boils and bagains are honorary titles, showing the belonging to a certain class. The classes were probably four – ordinary Bulgarians, bagains, boils and kolobers. At least thus are numbered the first three in the above quoted inscription № 58 of Malamir.

The kolobers were probably a priest class, but this assumption is based only upon the chronicler Teophilakt Simokata, who writes for one Avar priest, called on Greek βοοκολοβρας, translated by Ivan Venedikov as bu-kolober. Bu from the root boi (boila), which according to him means “family of kolobers”. To this uncertain assumption we could not give a confirmation from the Bulgarian stone inscriptions, because there the title kolober is given in a military or neutral context. This however does not exclude the priestly functions. It is possible that the kolobers were not a separate class, but a part of the bagain and boil ones.

The offices are in the same time military-administrative and political. The kavhan was the first substitute of the kanasubigi, co-ruler, as in the case with kavhan Isbul and is commanding the left part of the army, as with Krum. In the inscription he is called the boila kavhan. Probably the title boila shows the belonging to the class or rank of nobility, while kavhan – the office of a first substitute of kanasubigi.

The ighirgu boila is next in rank after the kavhan, commanding the right wing of the army, and sometimes he’s also a diplomatic delegate. Thus, for example, the ichirgu boila Stazis, who wrote in the Chividalsko Gospel the names of the members of kniaz Boris’s family, so that they would be mentioned in prayers, was sent by kniaz Boris in Rome to the Pope.

The tarkans are probably governors, military and administrative. The boritarkan is chief of a city. According to P. Dobrev it comes from the Iranian boru (borui) – fortress and tarkan (chief or judge) in the East-Iranian languages. For the olgu tarkan it is known only that he’s higher than komita, maybe a regional/provincial governor over several komitats. Zhoapan tarkan is with a rank of governor – he rules an independent region/province. Known are also zeratarkans, kalu tarkans and kulu tarkans.

Samuchii (самъчий) is a secretay of kanasubigi. There is one mentioned Eskhach [Есхач] in service of kniaz Boris. Kopan is probably a military office, chigot – sword-bearer. The bagaturs are lower military ranks. Some consider them as an analogue of the knights. There are after all kana boila kolober and bagatur boila kolober. If for the first one it could be considered to be the personal priest of the khan from the class of the boils, then for the second one it could hardly be explained the title bagatur, if it’s given to lower warriors.

Some researchers believe that the dignity ichirgu is given to officials in service in the inner region/province of the state, while iuk is for those from the outer regions (komitats). And from there are the iuk-boil and the ichirgu-boil, ichirgu bagain and ichirgu kolober.

The heir to the throne is called kanartikin, while the second son is boila tarkan.

Kanasubigi is the title of the ruler. Because it is written on Greek as καναςυβίγι the possible pronounciations are many: kanasiubigi and kanas iubigi, kanasubigi or kana siuvigi. According to Ivan Venedikov, unlike the Russian-Slavic kniaz, in Bulgarian the name is kunaz (къназ (кънїз)). It could even be assumed that kniaz is a derivative from kanasubigi – through kanas – kunaz – kniaz.



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



1. Kanasubigi
Emperor
2. Kanartikin
Heir to the throne
3. Kavhan
First substitute of the khan, co-ruler
4. Boila kavhan
5. Ichirgu boil
Probably minister for foreign affairs and commandant of the capital
6. Chitkoi ichirgu boil
7. Ichirgu kolober
8. Ichigu bagain
9. Kana boila kolober
10. Kana tarkan
11. Boil
12. Iuk boil
13. Boila tarkan
The second son of the ruler
14. Boila chigat
15. Bagatur
16. Bagatur boila kolober
High priest
17. Bagatur kana
18. Bagatur bagain
19. Bagain
20. Setit bagain
21. Iuk bagain
22. Biri bagain
23. Tarkan
24. Boritarkan
Chief of fortress
25. Zera
26. Zeratarkan
27. Olgutarkan
Governor of a region including komitats
28. Kalutarkan
29. Kulutarkan
30. Zhoapan tarkan
Governor of a big region
31. Zhoapan
32. Tortuna pile zhoapan
Military deputy for the region – elder zhoapan
33. Chitkoimir
34. Kormuchii [кормъчий]
Superior
35. Chigot (chigat)
36. Samuchii [самъчий]
Secretary of the khan
37. Kopan
38. Imnik


=================================================


[B]List of Bulgar names and the original titles of their bearers [Note that I haven’t included those names, which I believe to be of Slavic or Greek origing]

Alzek (son of Kubrat)
Asparukh (Isperikh, Ispor) (680-700) (son of Kubrat, establisher of Danubian Bulgaria)
Bayan (Bezmer, Batbayan, Boyan) (first-born son of Kubrat, khan of Old Great Bulgaria)
Boris (852-889) (khan (later kniaz) of Bulgaria, Christian name - Mikhail)
Chepa (bagatur boila kolober from the time of Malamir)
Dizeng (regent of Omurtag)
Dometa (komita)
Dristar (komita)
Dukum (regent of Omurtag)
Eskhach (secretary at the time of Boris I)
Grigora (subordinate to the boila kavhan in the time of Krum)
Iani (subordinate to the ichirgu boila in the time of Krum)
Iratais (boila kavhan at the time of Krum)
Isbul (kavhan at the times of Omurtag, Malamir and Pressian)
Kardam (777-802) (khan of Bulgaria)
Kordil (subordinate to the boila kavhan in the time of Krum)
Kormesiy (721-738) (khan of Bulgaria)
Kormisosh (753-756) (khan of Bulgaria)
Korsis (Okors) (kopan from the time of Omurtag)
Kotrag (son of Kubrat, establisher of Volga Bulgaria)
Krum (802-814) (khan of Bulgaria)
Kuber (son of Kubrat, establisher of the Macedonian Bulgaria)
Kubrat (Kurt, Kuvrat, Krovat) (632-663-668) (Leader of the Onogundurs (610s-632) and establisher of Old Great Bulgaria)
Malamir (831-836) (khan of Bulgaria)
Okhsun (zhupan-tarkan from the time of Omurtag)
Omurtag (814-831) (khan of Bulgaria)
Onegavon (zera-tarkan)
Pagan (767-768) (khan of Bulgaria)
Pressian (836-852) (khan of Bulgaria)
Rassate (889-893) (kniaz of Bulgaria, Christian name – Vladimir)
Sabin (765-766) (khan of Bulgaria)
Sevar (738-753) (khan of Bulgaria)
Slavnas (bagatur bagain from the time of Omurtag)
Stazis (ichirgu boila at the time of Boris I)
Taridin (komita)
Telec (762-765) (khan of Bulgaria)
Telerig (768-777) (khan of Bulgaria)
Tervel (700-721) (khan of Bulgaria)
Toktu (766-767) (khan of Bulgaria)
Tsog (regent of Omurtag)
Tuk (ichirgu boila at the time of Krum)
Turdacis (kandidat from the time of Omurtag)
Umor (766) (khan of Bulgaria)
Vardan (subordinate to the ichirgu boila in the time of Krum)
Vinekh (756-762) (khan of Bulgaria)

According to Wikipedia:
Kutrigur (western Bulgar tribe) leaders:
Kutrigur (490s-510s)
Khinialon (Chinialus) (540s-551)
Sinnion (Synion) (551-550s)
Zabergan (550s-582)
Gostun (582-584)

Utigur (eastern Bulgar tribe) leaders:
Uturgur (490s-510s)
Grod (520-528)
Mugel (528-530)
Sandilch (Sandil) (540s-560s)

Onogundur (federation of Kutrigurs and Utigurs) leaders:
Houdbaad (Hudbaad, Khudbard) (c.581-c.600)
Organa (Organ, Ornag; uncle and regent over the Onogundurs (617-630) of Kubrat)

From other sources (from the times the raiding period):
Buzan (Bulgar chieftain around 488)
Bulger and Drong (Bulgar leaders around 538)
Odolgan (around 546)

[Traveller]

Btw here's an updated list with some new things. Btw since noone actually picks anything from it (although I still have one thing to translate, I think) and the two forums are quite active, I won't update the other forum threads very much. Maybe only if I see something more "special". But now I'll list some things from again another forum and from a new book of the famous historical-publicist Bozhidar Dimitrov:

"The seven ancient civilizations in Bulgaria", Bozhidar Dimitrov
Introduction 5
The golden prehistoric civilization 11
The civilization of Thracians and Macedons 19
The civilization of Hellas 37
The Roman civilization 49
The Byzantine civilization 61
The Bulgarian civilization 73
The civilization of the Islam 97
Epilogue 107


BG-Science (http://bg-science.info/forum/) forum

World History:
The Holocaust! (for persons over 16)
The clash of civilizations
The sunset of the Inca Sun
The mystery of the Canaree islands
Preparation of Germany for the war with USSR
Chernobil 1986-2004
The USA in WWII
WWII-The war in Europe/The battle for Stalingrad
Ancient Egypt
Japan in WWII
Stonehenge
The Easter island
Tera island
Babylon
Ancient Greek fleet
Which period?
Slavic tribes and tribal unions
The battle of Ongul, 680
The Thracian society
The Athens democracy
The Roman fleet
The Inca Empire/events until the arrival of the conquistadores
The oldest fresco of the Mayas was found in Guatemala

Bulgarian history:
Pinned: Bulgarian medieval fortresses/plans and sketches
Georgi I Terter
The Bulgarian Revival
The Bulgarian medieval diplomacy
The April insurrection 1876
The Bulgarian aviation in WWII
Boris I on the battlefield - early historical dellusions
Democracy/Is the term Democracy clear?
Chronology of the history of Bulgaria!
Creation and establishment of the Second Bulgarian state
"Golden century" of the Bulgarian culture
Slavic writing
The Bulgarians become Christians/The choice of Kniaz Boris I
Bulgarian khanate on the lower Danube
Architecture in the time of II BE
Could've we taken back Macedonia in 1991?
The participation of Bulgaria in WWI
Is the Macedonian question Macedonian?/Fatherland, Boris Malashevski
They're changing the synopsis for history!

Persons:
Who do you think is the greatest historical person?
Dmitriy Ivanovich Mendeleev
Claudius Ptolemeus
Isaac Newton/Biography
Tsar Boris III
Konstantin Stoilov
Albert Einstein
Napoleon
Stefan Stambolov
Who do you want to meet?
Alexander the Great
Adolf Hitler

Wars and Clashes:
Miriokefalion-17.ІХ.1176
917 - The battle of the century
Armament in WWI
WWII
WWI
10th of November Varna 1444
The Russian-Turkish Liberation war
April insurrection
The assault and conquering of Berlin by the Soviets

Archeology:
Teke Karaach/The medieval Bulgarians were better literate than the Europeans
The hanging gardens of Semiramis

[Traveller]

You know what, guys? I'm quite tired of translating things and I don't really have the spare time for it. So maybe I could just find things on English and copy them here...

[Xuca]

Hey Traveller, interested in hearing about The Great Heardressing of the Serbs?

[Traveller]

Yeah, go ahead if you have something at hand! :go:

[Xuca]

In the beggining of the 19th century, men had long tails, not sure how it's called in English, but it looked something like this http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ITS/ITS203/ITF103023.jpg (couldn't find a picture of a Serb, but this girl will do).
During the First Serbian Uprising the Turks (they were all bold under their turbans) mastered a tacted where they pull a Serb for his tail and cut off his head. Karadjordje realised this, and ordered that every Serbian rebel must have a short haircut. The mendidn't like this desicion, and almost rebeled against Karadjordje. The women protested too, as they wanted that their housbands have nice haircuts. But, in the end everything worked out as Karadjordje planned, and he had lots of tailless soldiers, and the Turks lost their advantage.

[Traveller]

Hmm... Interesting, Xuca! Good! :go:
Btw I wish I could have such hair too... :sad:


Edit: Btw I've found here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1450marko.html) one translated on English Serbian poem for Krali Marko:



"VIZIER AMURATH is gone a-hunting;
Hunting in the leafy mountain-forest:
With him hunt twelve warriors, Turkish heroes:
With the heroes hunts the noble Marko:
White days three they hunted in the mountain;
Nothing found they in the mountain-forest.
But, behold! while in the forest hunting,
They a lake, a green-faced lake, discover,
Where a flock of gold-wing'd ducks are swimming.

There the proud vizier lets loose his falcon,
Bids him pounce upon a gold-wing'd swimmer;
But the falcon turned his glances upwards,
And he mounted to the clouds of heaven.
To the proud vizier said princely Marko:
"Vizier Amurath! is it allow'd me
To let loose my own, my favorite falcon?
He a gold-wing'd duck shall doubtless bring thee.'
And the Moslem swiftly answer'd Marko:

"'Tis allow'd thee, Marko! I allow thee."
Then the princely Marko loosed his falcon;
To the clouds of heaven aloft he mounted;
Then he sprang upon the gold-wing'd swimmer---
Seized him---rose---and down they fell together.
When the bird of Amurath sees the struggle,
He becomes indignant with vexation:
'Twas of old his custom to play falsely---
For himself alone to grip his booty:
So he pounces down on Marko's falcon,
To deprive him of his well-earn'd trophy.
But the bird was valiant as his master;
Marko's falcon has the mind of Marko;
And his gold-wing'd prey he will not yield him.
Sharply turns he round on Amurath's falcon,
And he tears away his proudest feathers.
Soon as the vizier observes the contest,
He is fill'd with sorrow and with anger;
Rushes on the falcon of Prince Marko,
Flings him fiercely 'gainst a verdant fir tree,
And he breaks the falcon's dexter pinion.
Marko's golden falcon groans in suffering,
As the serpent hisses from the cavern.
Marko flies to help his favorite falcon,
Binds with tenderness the wounded pinion,
And with stifled rage the bird addresses:
"Woe for thee, and woe for me, my falcon!
I have left my Serbians,---I have hunted
With the Turks,---and all these wrongs have suffer'd."
Then the hunters in their course pass'd by him---
Pass'd him by, and left him sad and lonely.

There his falcon's wounds to heal he tarried---
Tarried long amidst the mountain-forests.
When the wounds were heal'd, he sprung on Sharaz,
Spurr'd his steed, and gallop'd o'er the mountain;
Sped as swiftly as the mountain Vila.
Soon he leaves the mountain far behind him:
Reaching then the gloomy mountain borders;
On the plain beneath him, with his heroes---
Turkish heroes twelve, the princely Marko
The vizier descries, who looks around him,
Sees the princely Marko in the distance,
And thus calls upon his twelve companions:
"You, my children! you, twelve Turkish heroes!
See you yonder mountain mist approaching,
From the darksome mountain traveling hither?
In that mountain-mist is princely Marko;
Lo! how fiercely urges he his courser!
God defend us now from every evil!"

Soon the princely Marko reached the Moslems,
From the sheath he drew his trusty saber,
Drove that arm'd vizier, and all his warriors---
Drove them from him---o'er the desert scatters,
As the vulture drives a flock of sparrows.
Marko soon o'ertakes the flying warriors,
From his neck their chieftain's head he sever'd;
And the dozen youths his trusty saber
Into four-and-twenty halves divided.

Then he stood awhile in doubtful musing;
Should he go to Jedren [Adrianople] to the sultan---
Should he rather seek his home at Prilip?
After all his musings he determined:---
"Better is it that I seek the sultan;
And let Marko tell the deeds of Marko---
Not the foes of Marko---not the Moslems!"

So the hero Marko sped to Jedren.
To the sultan in divan he enter'd;
And his fiery eyes look'd fiercely round him,
As the hungry wolves around the forest;
Look'd as fiercely as if charged with lightnings.
And the sultan ask'd the hero Marko,
"Tell me what hath vexed thee, princely Marko?
Say in what the sultan hath annoy'd thee?
Tell me what misfortune hath disturb'd thee?"
Then the princely Marko tells the sultan
What with Amurath Vizier had happened;
And the sultan feigned a merry laughter:
And with agitated brow responded,
"Blessings be upon thee, princely Marko!
Hadst thou not behaved thee thus, my Marko,
Son of mine I would no longer call thee.
Any Turk may get a vizier's title,
But there is no hero like my Marko."

From his silken vestments then the sultan
From his purse drew out a thousand ducats,
Threw the golden ducats to the hero:
"Take these ducats from thy master, Marko,
Drink to my prosperity, thou hero!"

Marko took the purse of gold in silence,
Walk'd away in silence from the palace;
'Twas no love of Marko---no intention
That the hero's lips should pledge the sultan:
'Twas that he should quit the monarch's presence,
For his fearful wrath had been awaken'd."



Edit 2: And here's (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.html) a passage of Nicetas Choniates about the Sack of Constantinople from 1204:

The Fourth Crusade was directed at Egypt. There were, however, a series of financial difficulties which enabled the Venetians, who had been hired as transportation providers, to divert the crusade to their own ends. First it attacked the Christian city of Zara, and then Constantinople itself. The result was the establishment of a series of Latin states in Greece and the Agean, and the permanent collapse of communion between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates here gives an account of the sack of the city.

". . . How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was se en what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-Christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced bv a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [note: Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with gold, which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship, and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away as booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of the temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing on the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, so that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.

Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister of the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch's seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself, have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?

Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one ivho opposed them at all or hindered their demands.

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, the groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, the separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, bow great the distress!"

trans. by D. C. Munro, Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Series 1, Vol 3:1 (rev. ed.) (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1912), 15-16

[Traveller]

Btw here's a PDF file (http://forum.boinaslava.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=5136) about Slovenian history...

[Xuca]

Weird bunch, those Slovenians. They are forbidden to party in Slovenia, so they come here to make trouble. They fill out the caffes, get drunk, and the police is waiting on the other side of the street, eager for a fight. (Un?)Fortunately, there wasn't any.
My friend spen the winter holyday in Slovenia, he says that there was a bigger party for our new year, than theirs, and that for our Christmas, 2000 people came to the church, which can hold about 500 people. It was even on TV.

[Traveller]

And here are some maps I had said that I'm gonna upload (they're from one electronic encyclopaedia "History of Bulgaria"):

01 - Thrace in the first milennium BC (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/01-Trakiaprezparvotohiladoletiepred.jpg)
02 - The Roman provinces of Thrace and Moesia Inferior (I-IIIc.) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/02-RimskiteprovinciiTrakiaiDolnaMoe.jpg)
03 - Diocese Thrace (IV-VIc.) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/03-DioceseTrakiaIV-VIvek.jpg)
04 - Slavs and Bulgars (IV-VIIc.) Establishment of the Bulgarian state - 681 (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/04-SlavianiiPrabulgariIV-VIIvekObra.jpg)
05 - Ethnic relations on the Balkan Peninsula and initial expansion of the Bulgarian state in the VII c. (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/05-EthnicheskiotnoshenianaBalkanski.jpg)
06 - The wars between Bulgaria and Byzantium in the VIII c. (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/06-VoinitemezhduBulgariaiVizantiapr.jpg)
07 - The wars of Khan Krum (813-827) (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=07voinitenakhankrum8138271sm.jpg)
08 - Territorial expansion of Bulgaria in the IX century (814-893) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/08-TeritorialnorazshirenienaBulgari.jpg)
09 - The wars of Tsar Simeon (893-927) (http://img4.imageshack.us/my.php?image=09voinitenatsarsimeon893927sma.jpg)
10 - The wars of Tsar Samuil (976-1014). Falling of Bulgaria under Byzantine rule (http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10voinitenatsarsamuil9761014pa.jpg)
11 - Forming and strengthening of the Bulgarian nationality (IX-X c.) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/11-FormiraneiutvarzhdavanenaBulgars.jpg)
12 - Culture of the Bulgarian state (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/12-KulturanaBulgarskatadarzhava.jpg)
13 - Battles of the Bulgarian people against the Byzantine rule (1018-1185) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/13-BorbitenaBulgarskiatnarodsreshtu.jpg)
14 - The rebellion of Assen and Petar (1185-1187) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/14-VastanietonaAseniPetar1185-1187.jpg)
15 - Bulgaria in time of the rule of Tsar Assen I and Tsar Petar II (1185-1197) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/15-BulgariapovremenaupravlenietonaT.jpg)
16 - The wars of Tsar Kaloian (1197-1207) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/16-VoinitenaTsarKaloian1197-1207.jpg)
17 - The wars of Tsar Ivan Assen II (1218-1241) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/17-VoinitenaTsarIvanAsenII1218-1241.jpg)
18 - The Bulgarian state from 1246 until the end of the XIII c. The rebellion of Ivailo and the battles against Byzantines and Tatars (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/18-Bulgarskatadarzhavaot1246dokraia.jpg)
19 - The Bulgarian state (1300-1331) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/19-Bulgarskatadarzhava1300-1331.jpg)
20 - The wars of Tsar Ivan Aleksandar (1331-1371). Beginning of the Ottoman invasion (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/20-VoinitenaTsarIvanAleksandar1331-.jpg)
21 - Culture of the Second Bulgarian state (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/21-KulturanaVtorataBulgarskaDarzhav.jpg)
22 - Resistance against the Ottoman invasion and conquering of Bulgaria (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/22-SaprotivasreshtuOsmanskitenashes.jpg)
23 - The fights of the Bulgarian nation against the Ottoman rule - The Haiduk movement (XV-XVIII century) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/23-BorbitenaBulgarskianarodsreshtuO.jpg)
24 - The fights of the Bulgarian nation against the Ottoman rule - Rebellions (XV-XVIII century) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/24-BorbitenaBulgarskianarodsreshtuO.jpg)
25 - Administrative division and demographic status of a part of the Balkan lands around the middle of the XVI century (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/25-Administrativnodelenieidemografs.jpg)
26 - The fights of the Bulgarian nation against the Ottoman rule in the first half of the XIX century (until 1856) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/26-BorbitenaBulgarskianarodsreshtuO.jpg)
27 - Bulgarian enlightenment and church-national movement in XIX century. Tsarigrad conference (1876-1877) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/27-Bulgarskoprosvetnoitsarkovno-nat.jpg)
28 - National-liberation movement (1862-1868) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/28-Natsionalnoosvoboditelnodvizheni.jpg)
29 - Committee organization, created by Vasil Levski (1868-1872) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/29-Komitetskaorganizatsiasazdadenao.jpg)
30 - April insurrection 1876 (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/30-Aprilskovastanie1876.jpg)
31 - April insurrection 1876 - Bigger fights (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/31-Aprilskovastanie1876-po-golemibo.jpg)
32 - Russian-Turkish Liberation war (1877-1878). General progress of the battle actions (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/32-Rusko-Turskaosvoboditelnavoina18.jpg)
33 - Participation of the Bulgarian people in the Russian-Turkish Liberation war (1877-1878) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/33-UchastienaBulgarskianarodvRusko-.jpg)
34 - Resistance of the Bulgarian nation against the decisions of the Berlin Congress (1878) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/34-SaprotivanaBulgarskianarodsresht.jpg)
35 - National-revolutionary movement in Macedonia and Thrace (1893-1908) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/35-Nacionalnorevolucionnodvizheniev.jpg)
36 - Union of Eastern Rumelia with Kniazestvo Bulgaria. Serbian-Bulgarian war (1885) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/36-SaedinenienaIztochnaRumeliasKnia.jpg)
37 - Serbian-Bulgarian war - 1885. Actions of the covering detachments and the defensive battle at Slivnitsa (14-20.XI.1885) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/37-Srabsko-Bulgarskavoina-1885.jpg)
38 - Serbian-Bulgarian war - 1885. The counter-offensive of the Bulgarian army (22-27.XI.1885) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/38-Srabsko-Bulgarskavoina-1885.jpg)
39 - Balkan war (1912-1913) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/39-Balkanskavoina1912-1913.jpg)
40 - Balkan war (1912-1913). The Lozengrad meet battle (7-10.X.1912) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/40-Balkanskavoina1912-1913.jpg)
41 - Balkan war (1912-1913). Liuleburgaz-Bunarhisar operation (15-19.X.1912) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/41-Balkanskavoina1912-1913.jpg)
42 - Balkan war (1912-1913). Actions of the 7th infantry Rila division (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/42-Balkanskavoina1912-1913Deistviat.jpg)
43 - Balkan war (1912-1913). Actions of the Rhodopa and Kurdzhali detachments (21.X-24.XI.1912) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/43-Balkanskavoina1912-1913.jpg)
44 - Balkan war (1912-1913). The battle at Chataldzha (16-17.XII.1912). The defense at Bulair and Starkioi (6-10.II.1913) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/44-Balkanskavoina1912-1913.jpg)
45 - Second Balkan (Interallied) war - 1913 (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/45-VtoraBalkanskaMezhdusaiuznichesk.jpg)
46 - Second Balkan (Interallied) war - 1913. Defense of the Kaliman position (4-8.VII.1913) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/46-VtoraBalkanskaMezhdusaiuznichesk.jpg)
47 - Second Balkan (Interallied) war - 1913. Kresna operation (14-17.VII.1913) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/47-VtoraBalkanskaMezhdusaiuznichesk.jpg)
48 - Participation of Bulgaria in WWI (1914-1918) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/48-UchastietonaBulgariavPurvataSvet.jpg)
49 - Bulgaria in WWI (1914-1918). Advance of 1st and 2nd armies in 1915 (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/49-BulgariavPurvataSvetovnaVoina191.jpg)
50 - Bulgaria in WWI (1914-1918). The battle actions in the region of Cherna River and Dobro Pole (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/50-BulgariavPurvataSvetovnaVoina191.jpg)
51 - Bulgaria in WWI (1914-1918). The defense at Doiran (18-19.IX.1918) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/51-BulgariavPurvataSvetovnaVoina191.jpg)
52 - Bulgaria in WWI (1914-1918). Soldier's insurrection (22.IX-2.X.1918) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/52-BulgariavPurvataSvetovnaVoina191.jpg)
53 - WWII. Military actions in South-Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and the Mediterranean Sea (10.VI.1940-22.VI.1941) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/53-VtoraSvetovnaVoina.jpg)
54 - Military actions in the Mediterranean basin (VI.1941-22.X.1942) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/54-VoennitedeistviavbaseinanaSrediz.jpg)
55 - Military actions in the Mediterranean basin (X.1942-XII.1943) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/55-VoennitedeistviavbaseinanaSrediz.jpg)
56 - Military actions of the Soviet army in South-Eastern Europe (VIII.1944-II.1945) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/56-VoennitedeistvianaSuvetskataarmi.jpg)
57 - Preparation and implementation of the state coup (9.IX.1944) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/57-Podgotovkaiprovezhdanenadarzhavn.jpg)
58 - Participation of Bulgaria in the decisive defeat of Hitlerist Germany (1944-1945) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/58-UchastienaBulgariavokonchatelnia.jpg)
59 - Participation of Bulgaria in the decisive defeat of Hitlerist Germany (1944-1945). Nish operation (7-14.X.1944) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/59-UchastienaBulgariavokonchatelnia.jpg)
60 - Participation of Bulgaria in the decisive defeat of Hitlerist Germany (1944-1945). Stracin-Kumanovo and Bregalnica-Struma operation (8.X-14.XI.1944) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/60-UchastienaBulgariavokonchatelnia.jpg)
61 - Participation of Bulgaria in the decisive defeat of Hitlerist Germany (1944-1945). Kosovo operation (28.X-22.XI.1944) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/61-UchastienaBulgariavokonchatelnia.jpg)
62 - Participation of Bulgaria in the decisive defeat of Hitlerist Germany (1944-1945). Drava defensive operation (6-19.III.1945) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/62-UchastienaBulgariavokonchatelnia.jpg)
63 - Participation of Bulgaria in the decisive defeat of Hitlerist Germany (1944-1945). Mur operation (29.III-5.IV.1945) (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/63-UchastienaBulgariavokonchatelnia.jpg)

[Mircoslavux]

I saw very interesting movie about Roman empire yesterday .
It was 1. part (cezar's homocide),
the title is Empire and it will be each Monday at 20.00 on PRO7, still 5 parts remain.
so when you have an interest please watch.

[Traveller]

I saw very interesting movie about Roman empire yesterday .
It was 1. part (cezar's homocide),
the title is Empire and it will be each Monday at 20.00 on PRO7, still 5 parts remain.
so when you have an interest please watch.
Oh, I've watched it, or at least the beginning. But I missed the last parts and I guess I'll have to watch it on the comp when I have time... It's an interesting movie! And I'd also like to watch that "Rome" serial movie..

[Traveller]

I'm currently translating an article called "On the question for the Bulgarian military might in the last quarter of X and the beginning of XI century. Why did Bulgaria lose the duel with Byzantium?" And I've found really lots of interestig things about Bulgarian history and am wondering with what to start next (although they're relatively big and I translate just a short time on the laptop before I go to sleep): "The Bulgarian military tactics" (from the First Empire) or some chapter from the book "Rebels and adventurers in medieval Bulgaria", mainly those about the foreign contingents here, like ""Scythian" chieftains in "the fields of Bulgaria" (XI-XII century)", ""Varangians", Normans and English on Buglarian soil", "Russian "brodnici", political refugees and commanders in XII-XIV c.", "Commanders and allies Kumans, Tatars and Alans in the Second Bulgarian Tsardom"... I'm also thinking maybe something about foreign (for me, i.e. non-BG) history, cuz obviously noone else wants to copy-paste anything!


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



FOR THE QUESTION OF THE BULGARIAN MILITARY MIGHT IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE X AND THE BEGINNING OF THE XI CENTURY. WHY DID BULGARIA LOSE THE DUEL WITH BYZANTIUM?

Ivelin Ivanov


A brief annotation

At the beginning of the 11th century, after decades of almost incessant wars with the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarian state lost its political independence. In many research works on the period in question there is emphasis put on the stabilization of the Empire at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century as a major factor or a reason for the loss of our political independence for a century and a half. Of course together with this also go the internal political state of the Bulgarian kingdom and the decline in its military power, which made it easier for Emperor Basil II to put pressure on the Bulgarians.

This article considers the issue of the reasons that caused the decline in the Bulgarian military power at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century, the changes in the military stratagems observed in the wars of tzar Samuil and his successors to the throne. Why did Samuil avoid major battles in the open? Why do the sources speak mostly about lightly-equipped Bulgarian armies? Why did the Bulgarians of this time take over fortresses after prolonged sieges and mainly through starvation and military stratagems?

The current article attempts to give an answer to these questions based on the written sources of the period and the works of historians.

The topic of the present article is represented in our historiography from the beginning of the XIX century to the modern days, whereas many and different answers of the given problem exist.1 From one side, as a reason for the fall of the Western Bulgarian tsardom, the might of Byzantium and the person of Basil II are being pointed out, i.e. the external factor for the collapse of the Bulgarian statehood, while Samuil's reign and his wars with Byzantium are shown as a heroic epic, as a huge military effort, which however doesn't succeed in stopping the Byzantine pressure. Truly the external factor or the military and political stabilization of Byzantium in the end of the X and the beginning of the XI century is a main factor for the outcome of the Bulgarian-Byzantine duel, but in a parallel with this and quite equally in value, as a reason for the defeat we could point out also the military weakness of the Western Bulgarian tsardom. Which are the main preconditions and displays of this military weakness?

The manner of warfare, the military strategy and the tactics of the Bulgarian forces in the period VII – the beginning of IX century are partly known from the sources and widely presented in the modern historiography. The biggest, decisive and victorious battles in the period VII – middle of X century were achieved in open battle, through wide use of stratagems and ambushes, sometimes in big night fights, but were almost always connected with the wide use of the cavalry, which was taking the main burden, inflicting the decisive strike and finishing the battle by undertaking a pursuit. The main prerequisites for accepting decisive fights were several. On first place, this was the mainly equestrain composition of the Bulgarian army, a part of which was armed with heavy defensive and offensive armament. We draw information about this from the armament inscriptions, which were preserved to these days, in which except for chain mails and helmets it's also mentioned about ring-mails for the horses, and this gives a basis for a presumption that a part of the Bulgar cavalry was entirely heavily armed and represented the main shock core, whose purpose was a powerful frontal or flanking strike against well armed infantry or cavalry in an open battle. Unfortunately we don't have precise written reports for the numbers of the heavily armed cavalry, except for one report from the sources that in the winter of 811-812 Khan Krum operated in Thrace with a cavalry of 30 000 men, all dressed in iron, i.e. heavily armed (Pseudo-Simeon 1964: 172).2

Based on the records from the preserved to our days armament inscriptions from the region of Pliska, Preslav, Madara, Shabla and other places in North-Eastern Bulgaria, we could make one generalized calculation for defensive armament, intended for 1 713 horsemen (Venedikov 1979: 53-54). If we accept conditionally that the preserved to our days inscriptions of this kind are not more than one tenth of the existing from that time, then we'll reach the number 17 130 horsemen and that only in the so called inner region. If we compare this with the report for the 30 000 strong army of Khan Krum, then we could accept that the numbers of the heavily armed cavalry in the Bulgarian army varied between 17-20 000 to 30 000, depending on the mobilization tension and the number of the allied or mercenary detachments. On the basis of the previously exposed arguments and on the statement that the maximal mobilization ability of the Bulgars was around 20%, we could assume that in the beginning of the IX century the numbers of the Bulgars was in the limits between 100 000 and 150 000 people (Ketskarov 1940: 81).3 [Tr.n.: Of course, all these calculations are mainly hypothetical and not absolute proofs]

The considerably small numbers of the equestrain Bulgarian army compared to the military contingents of Byzantium was compensated by its greater mobility, possibility for fast movement and the good armament. The Bulgarian military victories in the period VII - beginning of X century were due not to numerical superiority, but to good strategy and tactics of warfare. Despite this, after the great military successes of Tsar Simeon a stillness appeared, and later even a collapse of the Bulgarian military might. What were the main reasons for this change?

In the period of Tsar Petar's reign (927-969) the already begun devastating Magyar incursions were a clear indicator for a decline of its military might. As Emperor Leo VI Philosopher writes in his Tactics, the manner of warfare of the Magyars and the Bulgarians was close, so we have no reason to claim that the Magyars and their way of fighting wasn't familiar (Leo VI Philosopher 1961: 168). Because we have no concrete reports or descriptions of battles between Bulgarians and Magyars, we can only presume that the Magyar raids were fought back only with the military forces of the frontier governors, which proved insufficient. The next military trial was the invasion of the Varangians of Kniaz Svetoslav in 969, which was aimed against the best organized and battle-efficient territory - the inner region of the state and which confirmed the tendency of decline of the Bulgarian military might. The fights ended with a defeat for the Bulgarians, who didn't manage to resist the heavy Russian infantry (Leo VI Philosopher 1961: 171).4 If we trust the reports from the sources, Svetoslav conquered 80 fortresses along the Danube and this gives us an indirect information that the Bulgarians already relied not so much on the army and the open battles rather on the system of fortresses and the garrisons in them. Concerning the density of the castle network in the North-Eastern Bulgarian lands we can also judge from other written reports, because in 971, during the siege of Svetoslav in Drastar by John Tzimiskes, messengers from many Bulgarian fortresses arrived, which attested their allied relations and obedience (Skilitsa-Kedrin 1965: 268).

With the exception of the invasions of Magyars and Pechenegs, Tsar Petar led a continuous peaceful policy for four decades and without any doubt this prolonged period limited the military experience and hardness. Whatever the preconditions for the occured military weakness were, in the long run it proved to be the main reason for the occupation of Northern and North-Eastern Bulgaria by Emperor John Tzimiskes, who relied upon the fortress garrisons. (Bozhilov 1979: 122).5

The next period in our historical development brought at the front the sons of komit Nikola, which managed to keep the independence of the Western and South-Western Bulgarian lands, while the new conditions brought essential changes in the strategy and tactics of warfare of the Bulgarians. One of the main changes in the Bulgarian military mastery from the previous stage was the change in the sieging tactics of the Bulgarians. Indicative in this respect are several moments from Samuil's wars. In the siege of Larissa, which was of key importance for the rule of Tessaly and for penetration to the south into real Greece, Samuil lost three years and the fortress was taken not with an assault, but with a prolonged siege and starvation (Kekavmen 1968: 23; Angelov, Cholpanov 1994: 38). In the siege of the Servia fortress a stratagem was used again, with which this time the Bulgarians captured the commandant of Servia and thus the city was captured in 989 (Skilitsa-Kedrin 1965: 281). On the next place, in their campaing in 998 towards the Adriatic coast, despite of the many attempts, the Bulgarian forces managed to capture only the city of Kataro (Duklia presbyter 1967: 174). One of the most important and strategic castles in Western Bulgaria was Drach [Dyrrachion], but it also, according to the most of the historians, was captured not with assault and siege, but with a diplomatic way and thanks to the fact that the duke of the city - John Hrisilius, was father-in-law of Samuil (Zlatarski 1994: 680). Most probably, despite of some incomplete reports for the use of siege equipment, the komitopuls and concretely Samuil didn't have heavy siege equipment, without which the capturing of strong fortresses would be impossible. As a result for this absence the Bulgarian forces and Samuil developed and executed to perfection the tactics of surprise, starvation and ambushes in their attacks against strong castles. The information from the sources shows that Samuil applied tactics of sudden attacks and bringing the enemy out of the fortress walls, as the decisive battle was given in a previously chosen and prepared with ambuscades place (Skilitsa-Kedrin 1965: 278, 285, 288). We find here a second characteristical feature in the warfare tactics of the Bulgarians in this period. In a careful look into the reports of the written sources our attention stops on the frequent mentioning of the ambush or series of ambushes as a main feature of the tactics. Of course, the ambush was a characteristic part of the traditional Bulgarian tactic and was applied frequently in the wars from the period VII - beginning of X century, but after 971 it takes greater and greater place in the manner of fighting and appears most frequently to be the reason for the enemy's defeat. It was applied often in castle attacks, in pursuits and a search for general engagement and was the most used tactical manner in the period of defence from the beginning of XI century.

The reasons for these changes in the manner of warfare were undoubtedly connected with the objective conditions and the changed situation after the occupation of Northern and North-Eastern Bulgaria and more precisely and most probably with the character and composition of the Bulgarian forces. For the description of Samuil's warriors the sources sometimes mention horsemen and equestrain detachments, but the question is what was this cavalry and did it compose a major or large part of the forces? I think that we could search for a satisfying answer only on the basis of indirect reports.

In the period from 971 to the end of X century the sources speak for active military actions and quick raids of the Bulgarian forces in Tessaly, towards Solun [Thessaloniki] and in real Greece. For one of these campaigns - the one in Tessaly from 978, we have concrete information for the use of cavalry and infantry, as we presume that the cavalry was lightly armed (Zlatarski 1994: 660). In the pursuit from the retreating from Sredets Basil II in 986 the Bulgarian forces managed to move very fast and to await the Byzantine army in an ambush (Leo Deacon 1964: 275-276; Balaschev 1929: 66). This, in line with the fact that the Armenian guard of the emperor, undoubtedly heavily armed, managed to break their way through the Bulgarians and to come out in an open field, gives reasons to presume that the Bulgarian forces, which crushed Basil II in 986, consisted mainly of lightly armed infantry and supposedly also of the same cavalry. In the same time we do not deny the existence also of heavily armed units in the Bulgarian army from this time, but their numbers were obviously very limited. Some reports from the sources speak directly for the participation of such in one battle from 1017, when the Byzantines took captive 200 heavily armed warriors (maybe horsemen), but these heavily armed contingents, as we could suggest from the last number, were a small part of the whole army, which in its mass was lightly armed and exactly this imposed changes in the tactics of warfare (Skilitsa-Kedrin 1965: 290).

But let us go back again to the end of X century, when after the defeat near the Sparhei River, despite of the successful campaign along the Dalmatian coast and against the Serbs and of his coronation as tsar in 997, Samuil dealt harder and harder with the increasing Byzantine pressure. When in 997 magister Nikifor Uranus entered the Bulgarian realms and started plundering them, the Bulgarians didn't oppose him, but relying on their strong fortresses, awaited the turn of even (Skilitsa-Kedrin 1965: 283). One of the reasons for this were probably the consequences of the defeat at Sparhei, but many of the historians believe that it didn't have a fatal reflection on the Bulgarian military might and I'm prone to support this opinion. The campaign of Samuil to the west and north-west in 998 proved that he still has enough numbers of forces, but the campaign of Nikifor Uranus in the previous 997 was indicative in another relation: although enough in numbers, the mass of the Bulgarian army could not resist the well trained and armed Byzantine infantry and cavalry. I think that Samuil realized this and expecting the heavy fight, hurried to strenghten his rear.

The next period, spanning from 1000 till 1018, clearly shows the consequences of the fundamental changes in the military tactics of the Bulgarians and its infelicity against the pressure from the regular Byzantine units. The main conclusion, which Basil II made from the military actions against the Bulgarians was that they can't be broken with only one powerful and decisive campaign and that he should apply against Samuil a methodic and constant pressure with gradual gaining of control over key places and fortresses. The first step in applying this strategy was the conquering of Northern Bulgaria and of the strategic fortresses Serdica, Bdin and Skopie. Realizing these main goals in his campaigns in 1000-1003, Basil II managed to concentrate his forces to the west, against Samuil. With these successes the strategic initiative went to the side of Byzantium and in this second stage the Bulgarians were forces to turn to active defence, because accepting a general battle on an open field was a certain suicide. Samuil relied on the tenacious defence of fortresses and surprizing raids deep into Byzantine territory, like the one against Odrin [Adrianople] in 1002, but the unfavourable progress of the military actions soon forced a change in this strategy (Angelov, Cholpanov 1994: 52). The key Bulgarian strongholds, although heavily fortified, hardly resisted to prolonged sieges and in one relatively short period Basil II succeeded in capturing Bdin, Skopie, Sredets and the big fortresses in Northern Bulgaria. Samuil couldn't unblock these important for him castles and the reasons for this were most probably the numbers of his forces, as well as their lighter armament, while the Byzantine emperor never again repeated his mistake from 986 (Angelov, Cholpanov 1994: 52). Due to the fact that the Byzantine forces had surrounded his realms in an arc from the south-east, east and north-east and ravaged the heart of Western Bulgaria, the Bulgarian tsar decided to pull out his defence and, as the Byzantine chroniclers say, started blocking key places and passages, through which the Romean forces invaded (Angelov, Cholpanov 1994: 54-55). Unfortunately, these actions were doomed to failure and the defeat at Kliuch is quite indicative. The big numbers of captives, which according to the sources are 14 000 or 15 000, suggest that the rout was quick and the surrender to captivity - massive, and from here we could suggest that these forces were without enough battle experience or with weak armament.

The applied by the next Tsar Gavril Radomir (1014-1015) strategy and tactics reminds of Samuil's one and was based mainly on guerilla warfare and defence of key fortresses. In his short reign the son of Tsar Samuil didn't manage to turn the process of military decline and was forced to follow the pressing actions of fortification and defence. The next ruler Tsar Ivan Vladislav (1015-1018) was obviously an active and warlike person, but despite of the efforts to draw the Pechenegs and for combined actions with Krakra, Basil II continued his successful invading policy (Skilitsa-Kedrin 1965: 288-289). Tsar Ivan Vladislav tried to realize a strategic change by forcing the Romeans to fight on two fronts and attempted to draw the Pechenegs, and on second place he tried to fill the dangerous gap in the rear, which was done with the turn over of the Drach [Dyrrachion] fortress by Samuil's son-in-law - Ashot, to the Byzantines (Skilitsa-Kedrin 1965: 279). The tsar died in the siege of this city and with his death the beginning of the full military and political end of the First Bulgarian Tsardom started.

After all this logically comes the question of what are the main reasons for the changes in the strategy and tactics of the military actions of the Bulgarians in the events after 971. According to some authors, the main reason for Byzantium's successes are based on the fact that the komitopuls didn't manage to restore the attacking equestrain detachment, which the Bulgarian khans and later Tsar Simeon had.6 They believe that the Bulgarians lost their heavily armed cavalry and infantry as a result of Svetoslav's campaigns and mostly after the slaughter of 300 Bulgarian bolyars [Tr.n.: nobles] by the Russes in Drastar, in whose hands at this time was the military organization of the Bulgarian state. According to Balaschev the armament and the manner of warfare of Samuil's forces was purely South-Slavic and this was the main difference from the previous period (Balaschev 1929:15-16,67). I think that these reasonings are right only partially and that not the slaughter of the 300 bolyars, not the human losses in Svetoslav's campaigns, but the occupation of Eastern Bulgaria and the inner region by Byzantium and the transfer of the political centre to the West led to fundamental changes in the military art of the Bulgarians. Analysing archaeological and written records, we could accept that the main, heavily-armed power of the Bulgarian army was being drawn exactly from the territories of the inner region or North-Eastern Bulgaria, where the stores with the heavy defensive armament were concentrated, and their loss played a fatal role in the following fate of the Bulgarian state (Bertin annals 1960: 287; Venedikov 1979: 52-55). The military-strategic importance of the eastern Bulgarian lands is confirmed also by the actions of Basil II in the very beginning of the XI century. The new capturing of Northern and North-Eastern Bulgaria after 1000-1001 predetermined the result of the Bulgarian-Byzantine duel. Probably these processes and events coincided with the decline of the traditional military-mobilization system of the Bulgarians, as this process most probably passed with a special intensity during the reign of Tsar Petar and was a direct result of the processes of feudalization and increasing social stratification, but this requires additional research on the complex changes in the Bulgarians society, which started already by Khan Krum and passed with accelerated temps after the conversion to Christianity.




NOTES:

1. The period after the fall of Eastern Bulgaria under Byzantine rule in 971 and the reasons for the fall under Byzantine rule are thoroughly examined in the following works: Златарски, В. История на българската държава през средните векове. Т. 1. Ч. 2. София, 1994. [Zlatarski, V. "History of the Bulgarian state in the middle ages", vol.1, Part 2, Sofia, 1994]; Баласчевь, Г. Българить презъ последнить десетгодишнини на десетия вькъ. Ч. 2. София, 1929. [Balaschev, G. "The Bulgarians in the last decades of the tenth century", Part 2, Sofia, 1929]; Кецкаров, В. Войни на българить въ Тракия 689-972. София, 1940 [Ketskarov, V. "Wars of the Bulgarians in Thrace 689-972", Sofia, 1940]; Ангелов, Д., Чолпанов, Д. Българска военна история през Средновековието (X-XV век). София, 1994 [Angelov, D., Cholpanov, D. "Bulgarian military history in the middle ages (X-XV century)”, Sofia, 1994]; Венедиков, И. Военното и административното устройство на България през IX и X век. София, 1979 [Venedikov, I. “The military and administrative organization of Bulgaria during IX and X century”, Sofia, 1979]; Божилов, И. Анонимът на Хазе. България и Византия на долни Дунав в края на X век. София, 1979 [Bozhilov, I. “The anonym of Haze. Bulgaria and Byzantium on the lower Danube in the end of X century”, Sofia, 1979] and others.

2. In the source the following is mentioned: “...By the way, when good days came in the winter and the rivers hadn’t much water, the Bulgarians came out with a 30 000 strong army, all dressed in iron...”

3. The author suggests that the mobilization capability of the Bulgarians during IX-X century was around 15-20% and on the basis of this and of the information, which Venedikov gives, I base my assumptions for the numbers of the Bulgars.

4. In his Tactics Leo VI Philosopher notes that especially effective against the barbarian cavalry is the heavy infantry and gives advices for the use of well trained infantry against the Magyar horsemen. Obviously in the same logic the well trained and heavily armed with chain mails, helmets, swords and battle axes Russian infantry proved to be an irresistible barrier against the Bulgarian cavalry and infantry.

5. The author believes that the Byzantine power on the lower Danube was thrown off not later than the summer of 990 and the Bulgarian rule there was restored until the campaing of Emperor Basil II in 1000.

6. This opinion is supported by Balaschev and many other authors, which believe that exactly the lack of heavy cavalry led to the fall of the Western Bulgarian Tsardom under Byzantine rule.





BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ангелов, Чолпанов 1994: Ангелов, Д., Чолпанов, Д. Българска военна история през Средновековието (X-XV век). София, 1994.
Angelov, Chopanov 1994: Angelov, D., Cholpanov, D. “Bulgarian military history in the middle ages (X-XV century)”, Sofia, 1994

Баласчев 1929: Баласчевь, Г. Българить презъ последнить десетгодишнини на десетия вькъ. Ч. 2. София, 1929.
Balaschev 1929: Balaschev, G. “The Bulgarians in the last decades of the tenth century”, Part 2, Sofia, 1929

Бертински анали 1960: Бертински анали. // Латински извори за българската история (ЛИБИ). Т. 2. София,1960.
Bertin annals 1960: Bertin annals. // Latin sources for the Bulgarian history (LSBH), vol. 2, Sofia 1960

Бешевлиев 1987: Бешевлиев, В. Прабългарските надписи. София, 1987.
Beshevliev 1987: Beshevliev, V. “The Bulgar inscriptions”, Sofia, 1987

Божилов 1979: Божилов, И. Анонимът на Хазе. България и Византия на долни Дунав в края на X век. София, 1979.
Bozhilov 1979: Bozhilov, I. “The anonym of Haze. Bulgaria and Byzantium on the lower Danube in the end of X century”, Sofia, 1979

Венедиков 1979: Венедиков, И. Военното и административното устройство на България през IX и X век. София, 1979.
Venedikov 1979: Venedikov, I. “The military and administrative organization of Bulgaria during IX and X century”, Sofia, 1979

Дуклянски презвитер 1967: Дуклянски презвитер. // Латински извори за българската история (ЛИБИ), T. 3. София, 1967
Duklian presbyter 1967: Duklian presbyter. // Latin sources for the Bulgarian history (LSBH), vol. 3, Sofia, 1967

Златарски 1994: Златарски, В. История на българската държава през средните векове. Т. 1. Ч. 2. София, 1994.
Zlatarski 1994: Zlatarski, V. “History of the Bulgarian state in the middle ages”, vol. 1, Part 2, Sofia, 1994

Кекавмен 1968: Стратегикон от Кекавмен. // Гръцки извори за българската история (ГИБИ). Т. 7. София, 1968
Kekavmen 1968: Strategikon from Kekavmen. // Greek sources for the Bulgarian history (GSBH). vol. 7, Sofia, 1968

Кецкаров 1940: Кецкаров, В. Войни на българить въ Тракия 689-972. София, 1940.
Ketskarov 1940: Ketskarov, V. “Wars of the Bulgarian in Thrace 689-972”, Sofia, 1940

Лъв Дякон 1964: Лъв Дякон. История. // Гръцки извори за българската история (ГИБИ). Т. 5. София, 1964
Leo Deacon 1964: Leo Deacon. History. // Greek sources for the Bulgarian history (GSBH), vol. 5, Sofia, 1964

Лъв VI Философ 1961: Лъв VI Философ. Тактика. // Гръцки извори за българската история (ГИБИ). Т. 4 . София, 1961.
Leo VI Philosopher 1961: Leo VI Philosopher. Tactics. // Greek sources for the Bulgarian history (GSBH), vol. 4, Sofia, 1961

Псевдо-Симеон 1964: Хронография на Псевдо-Симеон. // Гръцки извори за българската история (ГИБИ). T. 5. София,1964.
Pseudo-Simeon 1964: Chronography of Pseudo-Simeon. // Greek sources for the Bulgarian history (GSBH), vol. 5, Sofia, 1964

Скилица-Кедрин 1965: Скилица-Кедрин. История. // Гръцки извори за българската история (ГИБИ). Т. 6. София, 1965.
Skilitsa-Kedrin 1965: Skilitsa-Kedrin. History. // Greek sources for the Bulgarian history (GSBH), vol. 6, Sofia, 1965





(с) Ivelin Ivanov
=============================
(с) Electronic magazine LiterNet, 03.06.2004, № 6 (55)

Other publications:
History, 2002, № 4-5.




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

Btw I read yesterday one chapter of that book (about the Normans, Varangians and English here) and it looks like a really interesting book. Too bad it's so long and I can't translate it...:sad:

[Elvain]

Traveller, this is little KoH related. I'm going to make some new mapchanges in my mod's new version and those changes will be related also to Kazan/Volga Bulgaria.

There will be a kingdom of Volga in early and high period, probably with Bulgar nationality and Bulgars as kingdom specific unit.
Could you give me some names and how should the ruler be called?
You made great work about bulgarian titles but I'd like to save as much time as possible. I know I could find it myslef but at the moment I have lot of work to do with the mod and other things (community units pack etc.)

At the moment I would leave it at Khan as ruler and tarkans as knights (as it is in Kazan)

Also if you would give me list of bulgar (not bulgarian-slavic!) female and male names with which I could make bulgar nationality (for Kazan and early Bulgaria)

thanks if you could help me :wink:

[Traveller]

I have here somewhere a list with the Volga Bulgarian rulers and I'll start translating it (will edit this post later). I think that the titles should be as you said - khan and tarkan (although tarkan is more of a governor). But for the Bulgar names there is one problem: with male names everything's Ok (I'll translate some, which I found and there are also some in the end of the post where the titles were), but, afaik and unfortunately, we have no records of female Bulgar names preserved. There are some speculations that the name Olga is of Bulgar origin, but even if it is so - it's only one name...
----
Edit:
I translated that file, which I had, about the Volga Bulgarian rulers. Note however that I don't know how acurate it is! And btw I did a little search and the Wiki says that: "Almış (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alm%C4%B1%C5%9F) (Almas) iltäbär /ʌl`mɯʃ/, ul-MESH (the end of 9th century – the beginning of 10th) was the first Muslim ruler (emir) of Volga Bulgaria." And also: "The head of Volga Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria) was iltäbär (sometimes elteber). After the Islamization his title became sheikh. The known eltebers are: Almış (Almas), Mikail bine Cäğfär (Mikaul ibn Jafar), Mö'mim bine Äxmäd (Mumin ibn Ahmad), Mö'min bine âl-Xäsän (Mumin ibn al-Hasan), Talib bine Äxmäd (Talib ibn Ahmad)." So maybe it shouldn't be khan, but sheikh or emir. Also note that we have no information for the rulers before the Islamization and, as you'll notice in the following list, most of the names are not Bulgar, but Islamic:


The rulers of Volga-Kama Bulgaria

Gabdulla Dzhilki, son of Urus-Aidar
/865 - 882/
Bat-Ugor Mumin, son of Dzhilki
/882 - 895/
Almush Dzhafar, son of Dzhilki
/895 - 925/
Hassan Gazan Mumin, son of Almush
/925- 930/
Mikhail Yalkau Baltavar, son of Almush
/930 - 943/
Mohammed, son of Yalkau
/943 - 976/
Talib Mumin, son of Hassan
/976 - 981/
Timar Mumin Badzhanak, son of Mohammed
/981 -1004/
Masgut, son of Mohammed
/1004 -1006/
Ibrahim, son of Mohammed
/1006 - 1025/
Azgar, son of Masgut
/1025 - 1028, 1061/
Ashraf – kan Baluk, son of Timar
/1025,1028 - 1061/
Ahad Moskha, son of Azgar
/1061 - 1076/
Adam, son of Baluk
/1076 - 1118/
Shamgun Sham-Sain, son of Adam
/1118- 1135/
Hissam Anbal, grandson of Ahad, son of Kolun
/1135 - 1164/
Ulug-Mohammed Otiak Dzhangi, son of Shamgun
/1164 - 1178/
Gabdulla Chelbir, son of Otiak
/1178 - 1225/
Mir-Gazi, son of Otiak
/1225 - 1229/
Dzhelal-ed-Din Altunbek Alan, son of Otiak
/1229,1230 - 1236/
Gazi-Baradzh Burundai, great-grandson of Shamgun, grandson of Arbat, son of Azan
/1229 -1230, 1236 - 1242/
Hissam, son of Gazi-Baradzh
/1242 - 1262/
Tuhchi-Ismail, grandson of Chelbir, son of Ilias Yaldau
/1262 - 1267/
Galimbek, son of Gazi-Baradzh
/1267 - 1293/
Mohammed-Alam, son of Tuhchi-Ismail
/1293 - 1307/
Kassim-Bulak, son of Galimbek
/1307 - 1323/
Buluyum-Ordu Mugallim, grandson of Mohammed-Alam, son of Ismail-Galim
/1323-1340/
Mir-Mahmud, son of Bulak
/1340 - 1359/
Azan Hassan, son of Mir-Mahmud
/1359 - 1380/
Bii-Omar, son of Azan Hassan
/1380 - 1422/
Galibey, son of Bii-Omar
/1422 - 1437/
Yabuk-Mohammed, great-grandson of Bulgom-Ordu, grandson of Challu-Mohammed, son of Hussain Ashraf
/1437 - 1469/
Gabdel-Mumin, son of Yabuk-Mohammed
/1469 - 1480/
Burash-Baradzh, son of Gabdel-Mumin
/1480 - 1502/
Al-Mohammed Sain-Yusuf Balin-huzha, son of Gabdel-Mumin
/1502 -1521/
Mansur, son of Burash-Baradzh
/1521 - 1524/
Yadkar Artan Kul-Ashraf, son of Al-Mohammed
/1524- 1531, 1535 - 1546, 1546 - 1551, 1551 - 1552/
Mamed, son of Mansur
/1531 - 1535, 1546,1551/
Hussain Bairam Gazi, son of Kul-Ashraf
/1552 - 1569/
Sheikh-Gali Kargalu, son of Hussain
/1569 - 1584/


Now I'll translate another file with (this time) Bulgar names (in addition also of those from the post with the Bulgar titles)...