The Influence of Ancient Bulgaria

**The Wizard** · 10-15-2005, 15:34

Bulgaria -- doesn't ring much of a positive bell does it? Under Turkish domination for centuries, then a short-lived monarchy, which aligned itself twice with the losing side in the World Wars, and then almost half a century of Warschaupakt goodness.

But that was not what Bulgaria had always been. Once upon a time Bulgaria was one of the three great powers in Europe. Back then, it was capable of bossing around the Byzantine Empire and keeping the Carolingians at bay. Bulgaria was where the Cyrillic alphabet was perfected, and was the first champion of the Slavic cause -- perhaps the greatest.

But what exactly was Bulgaria's position in those days? Does it fit into the same row as the Byzantines, Carolingians and the Caliphate?

I say it does. Ancient Bulgaria was a super power. It bitchslapped the Byzantines in practically every encounter, annexed the Avar kingdom after it was defeated by Charlemagne (pretty damn cheeky of Khan Krum), and was a greater danger to Constantinople than the Muslims after Leo III.

Bulgaria at its greatest extent under Simeon the Great (kniaz 893-927, Tsar since 917)

**nokhor** · 10-15-2005, 16:10

there were several different kingdoms weren't there? depending on the autonomy and strengths of their neighbors.

**caesar44** · 10-15-2005, 16:27

The wizard

I agree with you on that , the kingdom of Bulgaria under Simeon was a super power , pure and simple .
http://www.bulgaria.com/history/rulers/simeon.html

**The Wizard** · 10-15-2005, 17:10

Originally Posted by nokhor

there were several different kingdoms weren't there? depending on the autonomy and strengths of their neighbors.

Could you elaborate on that question?

**edyzmedieval** · 10-15-2005, 17:30

Bulgaria was a power. Mainly because the Isaurians weren't the most illustrious emperors.....

But they remained a short time a power. Good administration and tactical genius destroyed them completely.

Let me present you my favourite Byzantine Emperor:
Basil II Bulgaroctonus(Bulgar slayer)

He completely destroyed the Bulgar state. No wonder his name....

Nokhor is right. They were dispersed after Simeon's death. It was easy for a genius like Basil II to destroy them.....

**The Wizard** · 10-15-2005, 18:31

No, it was not. The Bulgar state after Prince Boris I was not some kind of loose confederation of states such as a steppe khanate. It was an Orthodox state, as advanced and powerful as the Byzantine one, turned Empire after Simeon the Great forced the Byzantine Emperor to recognize him as Caesar (a title second only to Basileus, hence the Slavic word Tsar).

Simeon the Great's son, Petar, ushered in an era of peace and prosperity for the Bulgarians, lasting throughout his 48-year rule. Bulgaria was rich and prosperous at the end of his rule -- but perhaps also too rich, in the sense of having become more decadent.

After a series of infighting for the Bulgarian throne, the Byzantines succeeded in getting the Rus' to invade Bulgaria (970). They plundered and destroyed, leading to a weakening of the Bulgarian state, but were eventually expelled from Bulgaria. In the meantime, John I Tzimisces invaded and captured Tsar Boris II. He escaped after eight years -- which of course meant the entire state apparatus of the Bulgar state was wide-open to corruption and intrigue for nearly a decade -- but was killed at the border by soldiers who thought he was a Byzantine.

His brother Roman rose to the throne, but the real power behind him was Samuel, the future Tsar and nemesis of Basil II. He ruled for twenty years, during which the Bulgar-slayer started his campaigns, which were pretty inconclusive.

Roman was taken captive by Basil II in 991 and died six years later, in 997. Samuel, who had practically ruled the nation as leader of the most powerful boyar clan in the Bulgarian state, rose to the throne.

For two decades the Bulgars and the Byzantines fought. It was a titanic struggle, but pretty inconclusive. Samuel took some fortresses and/or cities, Basil regained them. Basil attacked, but was repulsed. The war is extremely interesting, for in proportions it is unique in early medieval Europe and certainly in character -- instead of being a series of raids like war in post-Germanic Western Europe, it was a fight to the death, a struggle for survival, which is extremely akin to the Punic Wars, and then in particular the first one.

Then came the fateful battle. Kluch, I believe it was. No matter -- the fighting was inconclusive until Basil sent a large vanguard ahead to search for a way to get around the static Bulgarian defenses. This worked -- the Bulgarians were surprised and 15 000 men were captured. The story is well known -- every ninety-nine out of one hundred men were blinded, and the one left was left with one eye to lead them. Samuel saw what had become of his army -- and died on the spot.

But, with Samuel dead, what was the state of affairs? To the Byzantines -- barely anything. Basil II had finally won a good victory, and had recaptured most of Macedonia. But that was all. To the Bulgarians -- Byzantine diplomacy had deprived them of the Carpathian basin, which the Magyars had taken. And the aforementioned loss of Macedonia. But that was it. Almost a decade of war, and all Basil II had gained, even with his victory at Kluch, was a couple of border forts and Bulgarian ports. He had regained Macedonia, coastal Thessaly and Aetolia.

Bulgaria at Tsar Samuel's death. Inset: the Bulgarian capital, Ohrid

Peanuts, of course. Even after Samuel's death the Byzantine advance was slow. Gavrail-Randomir, the new Tsar, was weak, and offered Basil II a peace treaty, recognizing the Byzantine Emperor as superior to himself. Considering Basil II wanted to annihalate the Bulgar state entirely, the fact that he accepted it showed that Bulgaria was not so easily toppled!

Gavrail-Randomir was assassinated in 1015 by his nephew Ivan Vladislav. Basil II tried to have him assassinated, but the attempt was frustrated. Then Basil opted to besiege the stronghold of Pernik, but was repulsed. In 1016 Ivan Vladislav even managed to secure an alliance with the Patzinaks to make war on the Byzantines, but the alliance broke down under the pressure of Byzantine intrigue.

The boyars were getting tired of this constant war, and since theirs was the power that had grown greatly since the time of Petar, they greatly weakened Ivan Vladislav's means to resist Basil. In 1018 the latter captured many towns in modern-day Albania and Macedonia, and even the Bulgarian capital Ohrid. Ivan Vladislav was killed trying to take the stronghold of Drach on the Adriatic. The boyars pledged their allegiance to Basil II en masse, and that was it. The First Bulgarian Empire was over.

Bulgaria's fall is a testimony not so much to the state's internal weakness, but much more so to Basil II's capabilities. However -- had Basil II faced a man of his own capabilities, leading a state as streamlined as his own, in other words: Simeon the Great, the chance is great that his name would not have been Bulgaroktonos. No, had Petar I been a ruler like his father, Simeon, or his ancestor Krum, I do believe that his had been the title Romanoktonos...

**Byzantine Prince** · 10-15-2005, 18:51

What influence? It seems to me they had no culture to speak of, and their only influence would have been pushing populations and messing up the ethnic makeup of the balkans.

**nokhor** · 10-16-2005, 01:07

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Could you elaborate on that question?

hey Wiz,

not including greater bulgaria north of the black sea, or volga bulgaria but strictly talking about the balkan bulgarias.

one could argue the first bulgarian state came to an end when tzimisces conquered bulgaria and made the khan publicly divest himself of his regalia and become a byzantine patrician, and the state was absorbed into byzantium.

could also argue that the second state arose with samuel and came to an end with bulgaroctonus, and the 150 cyclopses/cyclopii?

and the third state arose under peter II and ended when the ottomans conquered bulgaria.

by the way, i just learned about the eunuch tsar roman I and the swineherd tsar ivailo which just makes medieval bulgarian history that much cooler in my estimation.