The Influence of Ancient Bulgaria

Alright, Wiz, I think we’ve both been a bit over the edge and your last response is quite more coherent and modest and accurate as the reality of the issue at hand… but let’s get into more detail, shall we?

Quote:

---

My statement that Bulgaria was the "first champion of the Slavs" was, given, a bit sweeping in its premise. Which makes it logical that you have misinterpreted it. My apologies, but allow me to explain.

---

Apologies accepted, of course.

Quote:

---

What I meant was that Bulgaria was not necessarily a great leading nation for an ethnic identity titled "Slav", which, as you say, did not exist in the day and time we discuss; rather, I meant that Bulgarians were the first amongst the Slavs to manifest themselves into a working state rather than a tribal confederation -- on a medieval level, mind you, like all the other powers at the time. The only other Slavs that had managed this before had done so under the reign of a single or a few rulers, in short-lived states (Great Moravia and the Slavic empire of a Frank in the 7th century) -- not comparable to Bulgaria which survived for almost four hundred years until their first state was crushed. The fact that the Slavs under the Khans, more foreign to them surely than the kniazes (sp?) and tsars, never revolted or resisted and were never open to the advanced and meticulous Byzantine diplomacy to make them kick their so-called "foreign masters" is a defining pointer to the fact that the Bulgars who lived amongst the Slavs had integrated, or at least were as effective a warrior aristocracy as, for instance, the Franks. Mind you: Manuel Comnenus was able to make the Italians and Greeks in southern Italy revolt against the Normans in the 12th century.

---

The Slavs never revolted against anyone, wherever they had overlords. Since time begun they were living with overlords (Germanics first, Avars next, then under a host of others including the Bulgarians). On the contrary, in regions they did not have some non-Slav aristocracy ruling over them (Serbia, Croatia) they created their own hegemonies. BTW Serbia was a semi-independent hegemony in the 9th century and so was Croatia. And they were purely Slavic, not Bulgar-Slavic. Bulgaria before Samuil was also a semi-independent hegemony, suzerain to Byzantium. What makes them special? For waging war against Byzantium and having the ambition to take the imperial throne? Well, credit Samuil – and one could notice that some sources say he wasn’t even Bulgarian to begin with, but son of an Armenian officer and a Slav mother – with it. He was an able and ambitious guy nevertheless, but his kingdom didn’t really live after his death.

Quote:

---

Then on to the status of this latter-day culture of the First Bulgarian Empire. True -- it was based off the Byzantine one. But really, tell me seriously, what was the Byzantine one? It may have been the most enlightened culture in Europe for centuries -- something that, if the Bulgarians had at least imitated it, puts them already quite a bit ahead of the Carolingians and Ottonians -- but what was it really? How much did it change, innovate, renew?

Let us be frank now: it didn't. Nothing wrong with that -- it was a part of Byzantine culture. When George Gemistos Plethon proposed to the Byzantine rulers of the Morea in the 15th century (end days of the Byzantine Empire) to change the army back to one made up of citizens, raised to fight like they had in Sparta (so near to Mistra), the Byzantines would not -- could not -- hear of it. It was too wild, too far out, and the change proposed too abrupt. They, being part of what was the most pious, God-fearing, ecclessiastically pure state in Christendom, preferred to put their fate in the hands of God and the Holy Virgin, patron saint of Constantinople.

---

This is a rather naïve view of the Byzantines – and any other nation or state for that matter. There are a dozen of very pragmatic reason why Phlithon’s suggestions never found ground: Byzantium by Plithon’s was in full decline, that is a given. It was a smallish state with little or no power to withstand the stronger neighbors or control the weaker. Add to it that the Byzantine rulers and ruling class were ever-fearing of a popular revolt – as all medieval and post-medieval non-republic societies – and you’ll understand why there wasn’t a chance in a million they’d go back to arming the citizen – armed citizen are dangerous citizen, especially when they are just a tad bit above serfdom.

I won’t neglect the cultural dead weight and I won’t neglect the backwardness of the Byzantine society and state in the 15th century – but we are not talking about a 150 years of Byzantine history, we are talking about 1000 years. Byzantium was a monarchy and monarchies are not prone to adopt novelties and innovation if they do not directly benefit the monarch and his aristocracy. Byzantium for the greater part of it’s existence followed precisely that pattern, but was always ahead of western Europe (in every aspect until the 13th century) and even ahead the Arabs at the same timeframe for the greater part (although the Arabs had more inventions and scientific study, for they too inherited a large part of the Graeco-Roman knowledge)

Plethon’s existence proves that Byzantium was not all that barren or devote of innovation and solid thinking – don’t forget that this very person (one so little known too…) was the single most impressive force behind the renaissance. The man that brought the classics (and especially the not-christian-at-all Plato) to the Italians, should be credited with something. Plethon was a product of Byzantium or rather of the Graeco-Roman spirit that was still alive (half-living might be more appropriate) in certain aspects of Byzantine political and spiritual life, although the all-dominant Christian religion didn’t really help here…

Plethon was accused of being a heretic, yet he managed to continue without hindrance to teach and preach his own rather “different” version of truth… would that be possible in any other place in the world at this time? A heretic having a dozen Florentine students and teaching them, instead of being burn at the stake? Could that happen anywhere else besides Byzantium? Even in the decadent, weak Byzantium of the 15th century?

The Westeners were much, much more conservative before they met – again – with the classical Greeks, through the Byzantines and the Arabs. And even then, if the time wasn’t right for non-autocratic regimes to come forth (in Italy) there would no renaissance – it’s not a matter of people, it’s a matter of monarchy vs republic. Byzantium was autocratic=conservative.

Quote:

---

On the original premise of this thread: denying Bulgaria's position as a serious power, if even for a while (century isn't a while but okay) is a mistake. The Byzantines were quite unable to dislodge them from that uncomfortably close distance from Constantinople in any way straight up to the very last few years of the First Bulgarian Empire, and the way they were bitchslapped for over three and a half centuries, not to mention the respect if not fear the Carolingians showed towards the Bulgarians (as seen at Khan Krum's annexing of the Avar territory, which he did not defeat; Charlemagne did that for him) doesn't put them at the level of small-time upstart.

---

The map you presented in your opening post presents the “state of Bulgaria” as it never was - it was relatively close (minus 20% of the lands it includes) for less than 10 years. before Samuil, Bulgaria occupied no lands in southern Thrace, no lands in Macedonia, no lands in Serbia and beyond – just a small chunck of land in the north-eastern Balkans. Even in the time we are talking about, they didn’t control anything south of Larissa and west of Kossovo. Yet, you are presenting a map that gives the impression that Bulgaria had a huge, thriving, more or less permanent empire in the Balkans when it was just a very temporary, short-lived conquest, that crumbled away when the dominant power of the region put its act together.

The Bulgarian state was more than anything else a personal “empire” of Samuil, not a “nation” in any conceivable way. A personal empire that encompassed at a brief moment of its existence a host of lands where no Bulgarians (or even Slavs) lived in.

I m watching these days this “struggle” between the Byzantines and the Bulgars in military and cultural battlefields…and I am a bit surprised.

First in military-The Bulgars were twice crushed and occupied for 170 years.
Even at their zenith (krum and simeon) the bulgars didn’t manage to be a real threat for the city of Constantinopolis or even Thessaloniki and their borders were outside the mainland Greece (the conquests in Greece were ephemeral).
The Byzantine army was the best organized in medieval Europe.
The Empire had to struggle with the Muslims, and other minor enemies from time to time-so had to fight constantly with multiple foes.(Basil II won several times the Fatimids,the Armenians ,Abhazian-Iberians and Normans while crushing the Bulgars).
I wont try to analyze every single battle here.

Then culture…If Bulgarian military loses in comparison with the Byzantine ,I think a comparison between the cultures (“they were equal in their relative inertion!” ) is a bit funny.
Yes ,the Byzantine culture of course was not the ancient greek ,or modern,but has to demonstrate interesting achievements such as:

Architecture:Aghia Sofia:a wonder of architecture.
Painting-Icons and Fresco:their art value is recognized (although centuries had to pass for this)
Miniature art,manuscripts and so on.
U just have to take a look on the last 2 great exhibitions of Byzantine Art of the Metropolitan Museum in New York.
Or even the auctions at Shothby’s.

The Bulgarian culture of this era was nothing more than the poor imitation of the Byzantine art. The architecture(churches) and frescos were either made by painters and builders from Constantinopolis or Thessalonica,or local art which was-as the local art of the provinces of Byzantium- of poor quality.

That’s all..and let all of us be more objective!

Where are your sorces from, Rosa?

For the unbiased readers, you have to take into consideration the numerous times the Greeks got their *** kicked by the Bulgarians, to understand why Rosa, and the rest of the Greeks react so painfully to this subject. They'd deny the hole Bulgarian existance if they could.

And Wizard, I wouldn't reason with a Greek, it's like hitting your head in the wall.

oh!
what an argument !
maybe we should keep a level my friend....
As for the *** :
2 times crushed and under occupation by the Byzantines ,
beaten during the "struggle for macedonia" 1904-1908
humiliated in second Balcan war 1913
beaten in World War II (battle of Skra 1918)

Maybe ,we should be more serious,and speak with arguments ~:cheers:

Then you shouldn't bring modern era wars as arguments...

This conversation is heading to a 'CLOSED', as simple as that, and since I enjoy reading it, I'd like people not to make pointless replies like 'the byzantines kicked some serious a**, while the bulgars really sucked' in the typical 'my dad is stronger than your' fashion (as far as its possible, of course).

Back on topic, Seleukos, from what I read, the Byzantines in the High Middle Age were far from the 'best organized' army. Although the Romans won some important battles, they also got hammered by basically all their neighbours, no ? The simple fact they had to bribe all their opponents or to rely on their long term allies (such as the Khazars) or on mercenaries would make me think they weren't that good on the battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Back on topic, Seleukos, from what I read, the Byzantines in the High Middle Age were far from the 'best organized' army. Although the Romans won some important battles, they also got hammered by basically all their neighbours, no ? The simple fact they had to bribe all their opponents or to rely on their long term allies (such as the Khazars) or on mercenaries would make me think they weren't that good on the battlefield.

---

The Byz.during their zenith (until 1050)were organised in different units for different arms,different colours and flag every unit,-the units were very well equipped-their campaigns and camps were very well organised in detail.
There was a system of signs on castles,and castles and tower across the borders.
These things were unknown to the westerns of this time.
The Byzantines had to bribe and use mercenaries,cause they have a constant struggle on East,West,North many times in the same time...and the achieved to survive for 1000 years.
So...in fact they had the greatest military system until 1050,and a very good one till 1204.

I agree with you, Meneldil. It is pointless. I also enjoyed this thread, and thank you all for your interest on Bulgaria. There are so many misinterpetations and just plain lies about Bulgaria spread primeraly by Greeks. Any intelligent person can see what's happening here. Fueled by their zeal to protect the greatness of Byzantium, Greeks invade this topic and just hijack it, because there can never be anyone greater than them. They can't see how pitty they are. Have you seen the word Byzantium in the topic of this threat, my Greek beloved neighbors? No one expected you to show up here and dis Bulgaria. Why don't you open up a thread "The Greatness of the Byzantine Empire". We can all contribute possitive thought on the greatest moments of the Eastern Roman Empire, and not discuss how great Bulgaria was, because that would simply be out of the question.
On how small and minor Bulgaria was, here is what I have to say. The Bulgars were the only tribe to be able to create a state right in the backyard of the greatest empire of the world at the time. Not the Huns, nor the Celts, Goths, Avars, Pechenegs or Cumans managed to do that. The Bulgars (some say were from Turkic others from Alano-Sarmatian origin) managed to unite the Seven Slavic Tribes and create a strong Slavic state with a Bulgar leadership for the first 200 years (the total number of Bulgars migrating from Phanagoria is estimated to be around 20,000 among a sea of 2,000,000 slavs). That state was the first Slavic state - that is what we are - Slavs - we speak a language that is close to Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Slovakian, Russian, Ukrainian. The people who created our alphabet on the basis of the Greek were slavs - Kiril and Metodiy. That state, not only survived the vigorous attempts from the Byzantines to annihilate it, but managed to dominate the whole Balkans on several occasions, despite the attempted briberies and backstabbing of the Byzantines (to this day whenever someone backstabs you, betrays you or is not keeping his word, he is called a Byzantine in Bulgarian), despite traditions, experience, valour and wealth of the Empire.

Anyone genuinely interested in the history of Bulgaria will search for unbiased sources and make his own conclusions, I am not here to advocate how great Bulgaria was/is.
One last thing - have you heard of a modern country named Byzantium? Byzantium is not Greece. Byzantium was an Empire, there were Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Arabs, Turks, Albanians, Thracians and many other nationalities. So I think it is pathetic for you Greeks to boast about something that is no more, and never will be and to take credit for everything Byzantium achieved.

.
May I kindly ask our beloved Bulgarian and Hellen nationalists to carry their case out of this thread, maybe to the backroom?

:gah:
.

Hair, komshu~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

Hair, komshu~:cheers:

---

.
:medievalcheers:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

One last thing - have you heard of a modern country named Byzantium? Byzantium is not Greece. Byzantium was an Empire, there were Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Arabs, Turks, Albanians, Thracians and many other nationalities. So I think it is pathetic for you Greeks to boast about something that is no more, and never will be and to take credit for everything Byzantium achieved.

---

I would like to kindly remind our fellow patron that the greeks called themselves romaioi up until the waves of nationalism that named us back to hellenes for some reason. This hapened very late(perhaps the 19th century) We the people of the southern balkans who speak the ancient tongue of Athens are considered the heirs of Byzantium for we were the only ones to fully accept it.

The byzantines are and will be peoples who spoke greek, and that is how the greek nation was created, everyone who spoke greek and was orthodox was a greek. Period.

BP, I am pleasantly surprised by the change in the way you state your opinion. Good for you!
And I am not going to argue your opinion, but I still insist on the fact that the Empire was not entirely Greek, yet Bulgaria is the straight continuation of the one founded in 681 AD.
And again, this thread is not about comparing the two neighbor states, but about Bulgaria. Bulgaria didn't only fight the Byzantines, it fought and destroed the Avar Khaganate, subdued Serbia and Croatia, and bordered the Frankish Kingdom. Only about 30 years old, it came to the aid of its enemy, Byzantium to help them lift the siege of Constantinople from the Arabs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

BP, I am pleasantly surprised by the change in the way you state your opinion. Good for you!
And I am not going to argue your opinion, but I still insist on the fact that the Empire was not entirely Greek, yet Bulgaria is the straight continuation of the one founded in 681 AD.

---

Thanks. The Empire was not entirely greek, but the people's who did not speak greek were rebelious and wanted their independence, and refused assimilation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

And again, this thread is not about comparing the two neighbor states, but about Bulgaria. Bulgaria didn't only fight the Byzantines, it fought and destroed the Avar Khaganate, subdued Serbia and Croatia, and bordered the Frankish Kingdom. Only about 30 years old, it came to the aid of its enemy, Byzantium to help them lift the siege of Constantinople from the Arabs.

---

Conquorers are not victorious because they are better in some way. War has always been about opportunity more then anything else. Saying that Bulgaria achieved glory because it conquered parts of the Balkans is purely subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BP

Saying that Bulgaria achieved glory because it conquered parts of the Balkans is purely subjective.

---

Yep, glory is in the eye of the beholder. It can also be relative.

For the sake of keeping this topic going, let's please stay away from terms such as "lies", "propaganda" and other antagonistic words. Let the interested parties make their own value judgements on the merits of any particular source or viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BalkanTourist

Not the Huns, nor the Celts, Goths, Avars, Pechenegs or Cumans managed to do that. The Bulgars (some say were from Turkic others from Alano-Sarmatian origin) managed to unite the Seven Slavic Tribes and create a strong Slavic state with a Bulgar leadership for the first 200 years (the total number of Bulgars migrating from Phanagoria is estimated to be around 20,000 among a sea of 2,000,000 slavs). That state was the first Slavic state - that is what we are - Slavs - we speak a language that is close to Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Slovakian, Russian, Ukrainian. The people who created our alphabet on the basis of the Greek were slavs - Kiril and Metodiy.

---

Surely it could be said that the cultural cross pollination of having an Empire nearby was an influence in the stability of the Slavs. Inventions and political strutures are quickly taken up where they are shown to be useful.

Its also interesting to note what the likes of the Normans where upto in the 800 to 1200's. Particularly in Sicily and England as for cross cultural influences. The Muslim and Greek ideas combining with Norman ones in Sicily and the Saxon political structure combining with that of the Normans in England.

It probably should be noted that battles were not the only thing the Slaves and the Byzantians shared between nations. Ideas, trade and other items of interest did go between them. Unfortunately history is more interesting when read only the heartbeat of battles and not those of trade goods. Also merchant princes have a habit of not braying about their gains like those of Emperors, Kings and Generals.

Byzantine Prince might have vastly improved upon his manners, BT, but you haven't. Once again the same, old, tired fairy tales about Greek propaganda and the same old tired nationalistic panslavic, GreatBulgarian "arguments"... I think it is time you get over it and I really am not going into a debate about the whole thing.

Only one point: Kyrilos and Methodios were not Slavs, as pan-slavisists and Bulgarian revisionists try to make them. They were Romans of Greek ethnical background and there is ample evidence proving it.

I rest my case, there is really nothing to add to what I have previously written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seleukos

The Byzantines had to bribe and use mercenaries,cause they have a constant struggle on East,West,North many times in the same time...and the achieved to survive for 1000 years.
So...in fact they had the greatest military system until 1050,and a very good one till 1204.

---

Yeah, it's not as if Spanish Kingdoms, Frankish Kingdoms, Rus principalties and Anglo-Saxons Kingdoms had to struggle against all their neighbours too ~:rolleyes: They might have had the most organised army, but they were probably not the most effective one.

I'm seriously stunned by the opinion of many greek patrons here. As soon as a topic about the Balkans is opened in the monastery, someone will join and hijack the thread by claiming the the Romans were the best, that all other surrounding nations were backward barbarians, etc.
Way to go guys ~:handball:

I am seriously puzzled by the inability of certain patrons to READ all posts before posting sweeping assertions that damn a group of people just like that. I would only suggest one to read and try to comprehend with the arguments, before posting any silly remarks, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I'm seriously stunned by the opinion of many greek patrons here. As soon as a topic about the Balkans is opened in the monastery, someone will join and hijack the thread by claiming the the Romans were the best, that all other surrounding nations were backward barbarians, etc.
Way to go guys ~:handball:

---

The Romans are the best?
the others were barbarians ?

Who told that? So,ok...everyone should open a thread like :
"Our" super awsome empire and its glory,Shaka zulu and his invasion in mars,how Bulgars kick asses -and anybody shouldnt disagree with that. So,the Byzantinophiles,the Bulgarophiles,tha Mongolophiles should have their own propaganda thread-and nobody should mix in it to "hijack" it by spoiling the "glory of this nation".
I think that i and most of the guys that disagree here ,speak with arguments and try to keep a level .
Take a look upper and see arguments like "the Greeks got their *** kicked by the Bulgars" (!!!) (thread #34 by mr.BalkanTourist)

i think we must decide :we want an open and civilized dialogue with arguments or a propaganda thread about how aesome "we" are-and swering everyone who disagrees.

Ah and something else my friend Melendil,
i dont know whether u are French or immigrant from Balcans to France,but i think u dont know the situation in balcans(u dont have to know it of course!)

I mean this thing with the threads about Balcans is easy to explain:
After the collapse of the communist states here,all the nations of the Balcans try to revive their "national identity" -i dont accuse this,its natural in history nations to create their "national myth/or fairy tail". This happened in Greece too(earlier),and everywhere where this kind of national-state exists.

But,during this try,its very common eceryone to "try to get a bigger part of the cake" ,and so the nationalism rises.I hate nationalism-i am on left party politicaly-but this dont means that we mustnt be objective-or at least try to!

I dont think that everyone must just "shut his mouth up" when observing the rise of nationalism in these states.

:wall:

My biggest gripe about these topics is the tactics used. The first half of the posts has to be a rant against the bias, nationalistic lies/propaganda put out by the "other" side. Rosa pleaded that we read all the posts before commenting. However, the rant half of these posts undermines the ranter's own credibility as an unbiased and open minded "truth" sayer. These threads rarely stay focused on the original topic but degenerate into a discussion of motives for spreading lies.

I don't see any purpose for continuing this thread.

:closed: