Printable View
Why do you think the Bulgars were so successful in the field against Byzantium? In the end of course they were defeated but they had won many victories in the preceeding centuries. Was it down to Bulgar military efficiency or more Byzantine weakness?
.
And please keep Megali Idea and Slavophilia out this time guys. :gah2:
.
The Bulgars used mostly at first the tactics of the ambush against an enemy who was the superpower at that time,the Greeks(Romaioi).The terrain of the Balkan peninsula is one of the best places for conducting that type of war,guerrilla tactics.
At first the Bulgars were a nomadic race from the Volga region,they conquered some Slavic tribes and settled in the Balkans. They used the hit 'n run tactics and I think that Krum defeated the Greek Emperor Nicephorus in this way.
Later at the time of the second Bulgarian Empire the Bulgarians were more organised,but at their ranks at that time there were not only Bulgars but also Cumans and Vlachs(the Vlachs of Bulgaria could give at least 20000 warriors at that time).
I think that their victories should be attributed to the good leadership(Symeon,Samuel,John Asan),the mountainous terrain(ambushes etc.),the physical strength of their soldiers(they spent all their life as transhumant shepherds at the mountains of Bulgaria) and less to the gradual decline of the Byz.Empire.It should be mentioned that the Byzantines at their second peak during the reign of Basil made an epic struggle to supress the revolt at the Balkan provinces and at last to defeat Samuel.
er.
Μεγάλη Ιδέα, γείτονα :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
GAH me, GAH!
.
Basil II the Macedonian(or Bulgar slayer), which is my favourite emperor(sorry guys!!! the bulgars) completely destroyed the Bulgar state.
But the weakness of his successors on the throne of Byzantium allowed the Bulgars to rise again...
And so, on a long run, the Byzantines were defeated(unfortunately)....
I would attribute it to the strong nomadic influences, though later they were lessened... But, as I understand it, the Byzantines were never the best at destroying nomadic based states/armies. Most of the time, they ended up making peace with them (bribing them and using them as mercanaries), so I understand.
What is now the country of Macedonia was part of the Bulgarian Kingdom then. Basil II could not have been the "Macedonian" slayer, because the Macedonian people (of Greek origin) ceized to exist long before the Slavs and the Bulgars of khan Kuber (son of khan Kubrat the ruler of Great Bulgar) settled the geographic region called Macedonia. No state called Macedonia could be found in any historical document earlier than 1945 when the Yugoslavian Communist Party realized that the Bulgarian people in SFRM could not be serbianized so they tried to invent this artificial nation of Macedonians. Anyway that's a different topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Please do not use the term Bulgar, as it refers to the Protobulgarian part of the Bulgarian nation. Before Bulgaria accepted Christianity from Byzantium in 865, the Slavic tribes of Antae and Slavinii, the Bulgars and some Thracian tribes all lived under the rule of the khan but were not a homogenous people. After the common religion was accepted gradually through intermarriages a coherent people was created - the Bulgarians.
So Basil II is the slayer of the Bulgarians, which by the time of King Samuil was pretty much a Slavic state, and Samuil along with his brother Aaron ruled over Sofia and the nearabouts. Later Samuil withdrew to Ohrid, which was a major Bulgarian city by that time (King Boris sent St. Kiril and St. Metodiy's pupil Kliment to Ohrid to form a school there, which signifies the degree of importance the Bulgarian ruler considered that city with).
I agree with you,Steppe Merc,the nomads are men with great physical strength and endurance.However when they settle in towns their offsprings lose this strength and are easily assimilated..~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Quote:
Originally Posted by BalkanTourist
BalkanTourist , i think there is a missunderstanding : i think Edyzmedieval meant :( "Basil II the Macedonian" or "Basil II the Bulgar slayer").
Of course i agree with u for the nationality of Macedons.
Anyway,the fact is the Adjuctive "Macedonian" refered to the Dynasty,but wasnt used for Basil II,edyz.
It was used only for Basil I the Macedon ,the founder of the Dynasty(867).
It's not so much phyiscal strenght, IMO. Its more of the fact they no longer need to be the best riders and best bowmen to survive in a town. The steppe forged the nomads into warriors, instead of them being trained. But when you don't live in the steppe, having to fight for your survival, you get lax. Its also a heck of a lot more expensive to raise huge amounts of horses needed when your settled.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGNIFER,LEGIOVIICLAUDIA
The tradeoff is that they can afford more expensive weapons and armor, though that mainly applies to the nobles.
The most succesful steppe states (long lasting, at least) merged nomadism and settled riches (Khazars, Scythians, the Mongol Empire). Another example of people who managed to become more settled and keep their steppe style armies were numerous Turks (though many staid nomadic), and some Iranians like the Parthians. Also Avars and Magyars were more settled and kept their traditional warrior skills.
In fact Samuil withdrew to a small island on the lake Small Prespa,which now belongs to the Greek state.This island is now called St. Achilleos,where the ruins of his palace and of a church of St.Achilleos can be seen.Its a beautiful place,worthy of visiting,especially in autumn when the forests take a golden color.Quote:
Originally Posted by BalkanTourist
Ought to have been primarily the terrain and the natives' ability to use it to good effect. Clever use of the environment goes a long way to evening out the superiority "civilized" armies tend to have in terms of coordination, discipline, training and equipement over their "barbarian" foes. And, of course, warlike barbarian peoples tend to be pretty tough customers in a fight when it comes down to it, particularly if they can force a battle in the proper conditions.
Plus given the terrain the Byzantines probably found it very difficult to properly supply field armies operating against the Bulgars - which in practical terms likely involved a whole lot of frustrating marching around trying to bring the seminomadic buggers to a fight in the first place, and suffering harassement and ambushes all the time. That's a real pain in the arse to do, very expensive, and often produces little results. Small wonder then the Byzantines would happily just pay off the pesky buggers; civilized realms with the required capital (like the Chinese and the Byzantines) tended to find that one of the more effective ways for keeping annoying nomads and barbarians out of their hair.