Talk:First Bulgarian Empire/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Area can not been 815,000 change to 500,000 Km2

It says that the area was in the 10th century 815,000 km2. But this is not true because on the map it shows that the First Bulgarian empire was approximately todays : Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania, Albania and the half of Greece, Serbia and East Thrace.

So in reality the area would be:

                                        Bulgaria     -   111,000 km2
                                        Romania      -   238,000 km2    
                                        Macedonia    -   26,000  km2
                                        Albania      -   29,000  km2
                                        ----------------------------
 Serbia/Kosovo/Montenegro    -   102,000 Km2 the half is - 51,000 km2
 Greece                      -   132,000 Km2 the half is - 66,000 km2
 East Thrace                 -   24,000  Km2 the half is - 12,000 km2
                                 ------------------------------------
                        TOTAL    662,000 Km2              533,000 km2

So I am going to change the area because the area was according to the map around 500,000 Km2

815,000 Km2 is not posssible. Not even with the total km2 of Serbia and Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in fact it includes all of Serbia and Kosovo and most of Montenegro; also half of Hungary; the whole of Moldiva, quite large part of the Ukraine and parts of Slovakia. I don't know what the result would be but count that as well... --Gligan (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Area of Bulgarian Empire

What is the source of 815,000 Km2 ? I am going to calculate the area of the Bulgarian Empire again: According to the map

The empire comprised of:

The total area of todays                in   km2
Bulgaria                                     111,000
Macedonia                                    26,000
Kosovo                                       11,000
Romania                                      238,000
Serbia                                       88,000
Moldova                                      34,000
About 90% of Albania                         26,000    total is (29,000)
About 50% of Montenegro                      7,000     total is (14,00)
About 60% of East Thrace                     14,000    total is (24,000)
About 60% of Hungary                         56,000    total is (93,000)
About 5% of Slowakia                         3,000     total is (49,000)
About 10% of Ukraine                         60,000    total is (604,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total of Greece                              132,000
except:                      
Peloponnese                                - 22,000
all the islands                            - 25,000
the Chalkidiki peninsula                   - 6,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                            79,000            
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL                                        753,000 km2      (1,400,000 km2)

The total area is 753,000 km2.

This is the total for what is shown on the map, including the area of inconsistent control, the wartime borders and the extent of raids, although those should not be added to the total area I did it.

This is the maximum area possible it can not be bigger. I will change it, please do not change it back, I have calculated this very good. This is more reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with you here. In fact I remember that I calculated the territory by heart probably two years ago and I came to the conclusion that was is approximately 750,000 km2 and it seems that later someone has changed it. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Official (not spoken by Bulgar elite) language of the Bulgar Khanate

The common language of the Bulgar elite was the Bulgar language. Official language in the Khanate was the Byzantyne Greek language. All the documents and inscriptions were in Greek. The provided recently here sources are about the spoken by the elite language, not about the official one. The ruling Bulgar class was absolute minority in the state. Most of its population was Slavic, Byzantine Greek or Thraco-Roman. Please, provide a reliable sources about your statements that official language there was a Bulgar one. Look also at some proves, which was the oficial language in the Khanate:

1. The barbarian conversion: from paganism to Christianity, Автор Richard A. Fletcher, University of California Press, 1999, ISBN 0520218590, p. 338

2. A history of the Greek language: from its origins to the present, Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, BRILL, 2005, ISBN 9004128352, p. 265.

3. Bold textgar+khans+greek++language&hl=bg&ei=JcvkTJvjHMHJswaM283GCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Even%20though%20the%20Bulgarsadopted%20Byzantine%20ways%2C%20and%20the%20Greek%20language%20was%20&f=false Greek East and Latin West: the church, AD 681-1071, St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2007, ISBN 0881413208, p. 180. Jingby (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, let's discuss about this language issue. I carefully checked your references and took notes. In addition, we are talking about "common language" not "official language". Please check the coding of the wikipedia. That "language(s)" part is given under the code of "common_languages" (if you check the codings) which indeed means "the languages spoken". Giving only the Byzantine Greek as the "language spoken" will not be enough for this era.

Your reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=_-G1L-9Zec0C&pg=PA351&dq=greek+language+official+bulgar+khans&hl=bg&ei=GWDmTIDjNY6S4gbXoun4Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

The 349th page does not exist. Please read the sentence fully. It is the continuation of the page 349, not 350. Google books blocked the page 349. That "...of the Greek language and the establishment of the Slavonic language as the official language of the Bulgarian state." is giving information about the second era of the Bulgarian state which is between 864–1018.

Your reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=YbS9QmwDC58C&pg=PA106&dq=greek+language+official+bulgar+khans&hl=bg&ei=017mTNH1HIbc4wa44tn4Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

It says the inscription was in Greek. Inscription means "writing" method of a langauge. For example, Your language may be Russian. But your inscription may be in Arabic. (you can write Russian in Arabic characters; it means the inscription is Arabic) The reference does not necessarily say the language was Greek. Please see this part from the article:

"The language of the Danube Bulgars (or Danube Bulgar) is recorded in a small number of inscriptions, which are found in Pliska, the first capital of Danube Bulgaria and in the rock churches near the village of Murfatlar, present-day Romania. Some of these inscriptions are written with Greek characters, others with runes similar to the Orkhon script..."

Your reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=WlpPjOlVzQwC&pg=PA180&dq=bulgar+khans+greek++language&hl=bg&ei=JcvkTJvjHMHJswaM283GCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Even%20though%20the%20Bulgarsadopted%20Byzantine%20ways%2C%20and%20the%20Greek%20language%20was%20&f=false

Your reference does not say Official language was Greek. In addition, it says: "The next two centuries saw the gradual Slavization of the Bulgars, who eventually though only slowly, lost their language and became Slav speakers..." From this sentece one clearly understand that before losing their language and becoming Slav speakers, they were maintaining their original language.

When we are speaking about the common language, the chaos would be absolute. The ruling Bulgar class was minority in the state and inhabited only the north-eastern corner of the country. Most of its population was Slavic, Byzantine Greek or Thraco-Roman. They all were former Byzantyne citizens and spoke as common their own languages: Slavic, Vulgar Latin and Byzantine Greek. The last one was common and official language untill 681. Nobody knew Bulgar language. As a result all the documents and nearly all of the inscriptions in the Khanate were written in Greek. Even the small number of Bulgar language inscriptions were written with Greek letters. Jingby (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic

According to the article, Old Church Slavonic didn't represent one regional dialect but a generalized form of early eastern South Slavic, which cannot be localized. This is in contradiction with this article that says Old Bulgarian became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe, where it came to be known as Old Church Slavonic. Needs to be fixed. --Tone 11:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominal Ancestors of Serbs and Croats

"This can be compared to other nations such as Serbs and Croats both of whom are Slavic peoples but realise that their nominal ancestors were less than likely Slavic, only later to assimilate a Slavic character when coming into contact with Slavs that would dissimilate them."

Nominal ancestors of the Serbs, were Slavs - according to the Nestor Chronicle aswell as other linguistic sources, the term "Srb" is a synonym for "Slav", people belonging to the culture of Slavs (and this falls into place, if you take the history of the Serbs, who see all the Slavs as their people not just "some"). The Serb rulers assimilated other people than Slavs (mostly citizens of the Roman empire, Illyrians, Greeks, Albanians etc.) into their Slavic culture, similar to the Hungarian ethnogenesis which assimilated Slavic populations in a turkmenic Oghur Bulgar culture, in contrast to the Oghur Bulgar rulers of Bulgaria which culture was assimilated by the Slavic people their ruled upon.

Serb rulers were not dissimilated by the local population, but the non-Slavic population was assimilated by the Slavic Serbs. It may seem unimportant, but it's a strong pillar of Serb national identity, not having "foreigners" in their nominal national tradition, hence all rulers were of Slavic kinship.

(the Ottoman influence was a result of the occupation, and is, eventough present on the Balkans, seen as foreign by the Balkan nations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.184.104 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fringe views removed

I have left the worldwide accepted views supported by Bulgarian Academy of sciences, Oxford and Cambridge University publications. A fringe views supported by some modern biased Bulgarian scientists with nationalistic agenda was remuved as pseudo-science. Jingiby (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

User:Mehmeett21, please use this talk page before making any further edits to the article. The second source (Western Civilisation: Beyond Boundaries), explicitly states that the First Bulgarian Empire was a state of the southern Slavs. It seems you're confusing the Bulgars (also called Proto-Bulgarians) with the Bulgarians. I also think that it is highly unlikely that Detrez states that the FBE was Turkic. There is no such statement in the 2nd edition of his historical dictionary. Can you provide the quote from the third edition, which you referred to (I can't see it on google books)? Tropcho (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Were Bulgars Turks ?

The cited source doesn't state that Bulgars were Turks ! Pay attention : Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations.

So, when sth is dtill disputed don't cite only one point of view. Or find a better source to prove your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 21:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

bulgarian empire is turkic

why do you not acept my refernces!Mehmeett21 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Mehmeett21, as a beginning you should start making difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians. The First Bulgarian Empire was a state of the Bulgarians, not the Bulgars, and the Bulgarians are a Slavic people. Adding the term "Turkic" in the lead section is misleading and above all - unnecessary, because nobody adds that the Kingdom of Castile was a Romance country or that the Kingdom of Hungary was an Uralic or Ugro-Finnic country since that information is redundant for a lead section. Gligan (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 681 by the Bulgars read thatMehmeett21 17:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

AND you claim does not change the referenceMehmeett21 17:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulgars were Hunnic tribes - Utigurs and Kutrigurs :

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/index.html

Are you saying that the (European) Huns were Turks ? Because the problem is still debated among the scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mehmeett21 Can we see the quote from the reference you gave (Peter Sarris (2011). Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500-700. p. 308.)? Tropcho (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Provided by User Mehmeett21 source: Peter Sarris (2011). Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500-700. p. 308, does not claim the First Bulgarian Empire was a Turkic state. It says, the state was founded by the Turkic Bulgars, that formed initially the ruling elite and governed the vast majority of the population pagan Slavs and Christian Byzantines. Later the Bulgars themselves were christianized and slavicized too, and lost their identity, language etc. Check here, please. However, that facts are described in the article and they do not make the state Turkic, as a whole. 46.16.193.70 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Split (Bulgarian Khanate)

Unresolved

If Simeon I assumed the title of Tsar (Emperor) in 913, why is First Bulgarian Empire spanning from 681? Shouldn't the article be split into Bulgarian Khanate?--Zoupan 03:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan, the widely accepted periodization of the medieval Bulgarian history is First Bulgarian Empire (681-1018) and Second Bulgarian Empire (1185-1396/1422). That is how medieval Bulgaria is studied by both Bulgarian and international historians. Of course, the country was officially recognized as an Empire in 913/927 but that actually brought no change to Bulgaria's administration, policy or state organization. It makes no sense to divide the article to Bulgarian Khanate (681-864), Principality (864-927) and First? Empire (927-1018) because that entity is treated as one. Regards, Gligan (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say that this periodization has several flaws, first of all, the rulers were titled khan, apart from Boris I and Vladimir, who used archon (prince, though used by Byzantines for foreign rulers). Secondly, the Bulgarian Khanate was established by Bulgars, and was only consolidated as "South Slavic" after Boris I (Christianization, adoption of Slavic). I would not divide Bulgarian Khanate and Bulgar "Principality", but mark the beginning of the First Bulgarian Empire where appropriate, in 913 when Simeon received the title. Apart from nomenclature, there was without a doubt two polities with differing characteristics and particular historical events. --Zoupan 18:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The formation of a Bulgarian nationality with the merger of Bulgars and Slavs was a lengthy process that actually began with the creation of the state in 681 and finished in 9th-10th centuries but there is no way to determine a date of the consolidation. And there are absolutely no differing characteristics before and after 913. The First Bulgarian Empire is treated as one entity from 681 until 1018 and I think that Wikipedia should adhere to this. Gligan (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not a proper analysis of the early history of Bulgaria. There are absolutely differing characteristics; Paganism vs. Christianity, Turkic culture vs. Byzantine culture, khanate vs. tsarstvo, Bulgar elite-Slavic subjects vs. Bulgar-Slavic symbiosis.--Zoupan 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no date that can serve as a divide between these processes. They took part over a prolonged period of time, developed separately from one another, and took place in one and the same country. Gligan (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about the ethnogenesis of the modern ethnic group/nation of Bulgarians. This article is about two polities, the Bulgarian Khanate and the (First) Bulgarian Empire. I doubt that historiography make no distinction between the two. The history up until "The Golden Age" should be expanded into Bulgarian Khanate.--Zoupan 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, Bulgarian WP uses "Първа българска държава" (First Bulgarian State) for the period of 681—1018.--Zoupan 21:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it also uses Second Bulgarian State. In Bulgarian historiography both terms are equally valid: First/Second Bulgarian Empire (царство), or State (държава). PS: It makes no sense to place the history until the Golden Age in an article "Bulgarian Khanate", because that is simply wrong. --Gligan (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of English historical sources refer to the Bulgarian state that existed continuously between c. 680 and 1018 as the First Bulgarian Empire. See e.g. Sir Steven Runciman's History of the First Bulgarian Empire, Encyclopedia Britannica, or The Cambridge Medieval History, vol 4 (Ch. 8: The Rise and Fall of the First Bulgarian Empire 679 - 1018)). I think that the reason to treat the First Bulgarian Empire as a single entity is simple: it is a single state that continuously evolved from one stage to the next. (Of course it changed significantly between its establishment and its fall.) Thus, I think it's not appropriate to split this article, on the basis of WP:OR arguments, or invent new notation here. Separate articles providing more details about the different periods are acceptable, in my view. Tropcho (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense calling a khanate/principality an Empire. The Bulgarian Khanate is part of the history of Bulgaria in the Early Middle Ages (and as such included in works about the First Bulgarian Empire), but it was not the Bulgarian Empire. A background section would summarize the history of the Bulgarian Khanate. Also, there is no mention that "First Bulgarian Empire" is a name used by some historians for this period (681-1018) which would more appropriately be named "First Bulgarian State", as per actual periodization.--Zoupan 22:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

David Marshall Lang (1976). The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-89158-530-5. distinguishes the Bulgarian Khanate (681–) from the Empire (913–).--Zoupan 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

One, you're arguing with the authors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Cambridge Medieval History, etc. Should we give preference to an editor's original research and opinions over what is found in reliable sources? Two, your argument seems to be wrong. See e.g. Mongol Empire. Tropcho (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Three, it appears that the source you mentioned (DM Lang) also uses the term "First Bulgarian Empire" to refer to this state. The name of the third chapter of his book is "From Khanate to Imperium: The First Bulgarian Empire". Tropcho (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try again. Facts: The First Bulgarian Empire is "so-called". Between 681 and 913, Bulgaria was not an Empire (232 years). In 913, Simeon was recognized with the title (okay, an Empire), the state being disestablished in 1018 (105 years). Where is the original research (read it)?

I was invited into this discussion by Zoupan. His points are valid, in so far as the status and nature of the Bulgarian state changed quickly after ca. 864, esp. with its Christianization, but I agree with Gligan and the others on opposing the split: First, because despite the change in religion and nomenclature, it was still largely the same polity; just as we don't split the Kievan Rus' into pre- and post-Christianization periods, or Byzantium into the "Eastern Roman Empire" until 640/717 and "Byzantine Empire" proper thereafter because of the (rather cataclysmic) transition from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Second, because of usage; usage of "Bulgarian Khanate" is limited, and most authors and publications of note employ "First Bulgarian Empire" to cover the entire period of independent Bulgarian statehood from 681 until 1018. In short, the periodization referenced by Zoupan is useful and is actually used, but within the over-arching context of the "First Bulgarian Empire". Constantine ✍ 23:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Zoupan" it really doesn't matter what you think is "proper" and 'correct'. What matters is what is the academic concensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.86.163 (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

wp:OR map

1. What makes "maximum extent of raids" part of a state? 2. Was Attica, Thessalonike, Chalkidice part of the Bulgarian Empire?

I wonder what makes the specific map historical. My concerns are placed in the caption below. I've placed a more detailed map under the problematic one.Alexikoua (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A detailed map on the same subject, the previous map is a bad copy of this one.

The more detailed map is certainly more precise and informative. Maps showing the extent of raids are deceptive as they suggest the territory was held in the empire's control. I support use of the more detailed version. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The original map is a consensus map and has been with the page for years. The map you suggest is grossly inaccurate, claiming inconsistent control over areas that were in full control. 38.100.196.195 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please show where there was consensus gained for the less detailed map. In fact, going back "years," the more detailed map was in the infobox in 2007 until it was changed without explanation or discussion in December 2013. It was restored as part of the "established text of the article" after numerous POV edits were rejected in March 2015 and remained until it was again changed without explanation or discussion by a single-purpose account used only to switch these maps on two pages. So if any map has consensus based on longevity, it is the more detailed one. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First Bulgarian Empire in IX–X century

Both those maps are unsourced, factually inaccurate, and fail to provide a plausible idea of the territorial scope of the First Bulgarian Empire. I would suggest we use the third map on the right instead, which is sourced to a reliable history publication too. Apcbg (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The map suggested by Apcbg does look like the best option. I'm not sure what has happened here, but I distinctly remember that User:TodorBozhinov used to make maps like the one that is currently used in the article. However, this one is uploaded by an unknown (to me) user who has no other edits on any wiki project whatsoever.--Laveol ^T 22:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I also support this map. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised that a map extensively used during the last years in a wide variety of articles has serious problems (i.e. the 2nd). After searching relevant bibliography I admit that Apcbg's proposal is the best option & the map appears 100% historically accurate. Is there a wayin commons or here to tag or at least to inform that 1st & 2nd maps contain errors/lack reference in order to avoid future use of them?Alexikoua (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The map suggested by Apcbg is the best choice. --T*U (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion, I also agree that the third map is the best; just one question: what is "entrenched areas" supposed to mean? Constantine ✍ 08:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Cannot be certain unless we have seen the Bulgarian original, but most probably means "fortified areas". Apcbg (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the original (cited in the map's description), it refers to fortified areas compared to limites. — Toдor Boжinov — 11:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I drew the original of the second map (the green one). Curiously, the one shown here has been reuploaded by someone else without mentioning my authorship, which is another reason not to use it. This is my original upload, which includes a list of references, including the same publication that the map suggested by Apcbg cites. It is based on my research during the writing of the Simeon the Great article and I remember it includes the valuable feedback of Ian Mladjov (User:Imladjov), who is a lecturer with expertise on the medieval Balkans and with a great interest in mapmaking too.

That said, the map suggested by Apcbg is more detailed, so I am not opposed to using it. Just wanted to do away with the suspicions that the map I authored is unsourced and factually inaccurate. I recommend that the version of my map cited here be deleted from Commons, but obviously, I do not support labelling my original map as containing errors or lacking references. — Toдor Boжinov — 11:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Todor, while accepting that your map was indeed sourced, and probably the word "inaccurate" is not the appropriate one, it is still my opinion that that map has certain drawbacks making it less suitable than the third map in serving as a representative illustration of the territorial scope of the First Bulgarian Empire. The borders of that empire changed significantly during the three hundred-odd years of its existence but, for instance, the Aegean coast of Thrace was seldom and very briefly occupied by Bulgaria (being vitally important for Byzantium due to Via Egnatia linking that neighbour's main cities of Constantinople and Thessaloniki), and thus could be marked on a map illustrating Tsar Simeon's Bulgaria and his wars but not on a map generally illustrating the article on the First Bulgarian Empire, I believe. Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your arguments, Apcbg. The map you're proposing is more suitable here. Just wanted to clear up the status of the map I drew because the discussion had quickly stranded in the direction of "let's not use this map anywhere anymore because it's wrong, apparently". Best regards, — Toдor Boжinov — 13:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Still, think the original green map is the best, but ok... will use the thrid version.

Similar to Apcbg's concern the 2nd map (especially in small size) offers the false impression that regions that simply reflected "maximum penetration of raids" were part of Samuil's reign. A change in colors may solve this issue and distinguish "Bulgaria proper" from those areas that witnessed raids or were theatre of Byzantine-Bulgarian conflicts.Alexikoua (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Map of the Empire during the reign of Boris I.

Map of the Empire during the late reign of Simeon the Great after 918. (areas under control without inaccuracies according to the sources from Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927, maybe the largest extent)

The current map is missing much of the territories gained in the early X century, mostly resembling the map during the reign of Boris I, southern Greece and Adrianople were conquered between 914 and 918, so this map does not represent the largest extent. The Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 resulted in total Bulgarian military supremacy in the Balkan Peninsula. The Byzantines were defeated at Achelous, Katasyrtai and Pegae. The missing point of the current map is, that this is not the largest extent - Adrianople and Thebes, into the Theme of Hellas, deep into modern southern Greece, were incorporated into the First Bulgarian Empire during the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 (read article's introduction). Please, read Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927#Campaigns against the Byzantines (917-922), a quote from the sourced information there:

"in 918 Simeon I personally led a campaign in the Theme of Hellas and penetrated deep to the south, reaching Corinth. The Bulgarians took a lot of captives and forced the population to pay taxes to the Bulgarian state, while many people fled to island of Euboea and the Peloponnese peninsula to seek refuge. The capital of Hellas, Thebes, was seized and its fortifications were destroyed"

A peace treaty in 927 restored the Bulgarian-Byzantine border approximately along the lines agreed in 904 — the Bulgarians returned most Simeon I's conquests in Thrace, Thessaly and Hellas and retained firm control over most of Macedonia and the larger part of Epirus. the lines agreed in 904 stretched from the Falakro mountain through the town of Serres which lay on the Byzantine side, then turned south-west to Narash, crossed the river Vardar at the modern village of Axiohori, ran through Mount Paiko, passed east of Edessa through Vermio and Askio mountains, crossed the river Haliacmon south of the town of Kostur, which lay in Bulgaria, ran through the Gramos mountains, then followed the river Aoös until its confluence with the river Drino and finally turn west, reaching the Adriatic Sea at the town of Himarë.

The two maps in green may be wrong, the first because includes Halkidice, the second because paints much of the territories in modern Romania under inconsistent control, which were under consistent control. The current map seems the most misleading, showing the territorial extent into the early X century as less extensive. Why should the map in the infobox exclude these territories and do not show the largest extent? The last map in beige and orange summarizes the best way the controlled area of the Empire, it is the green map of Todor Bozhinov, but having the inaccuracies for inconsistent control in modern Romania corrected. 130.204.189.232 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Making raids into a territory and sacking the towns there is not the same as "incorporated into" a state, especially not in medieval warfare; for the example you give, Hellas was raided, and a tax was levied, but no administration was installed, nor was there any attempt to make Bulgarian presence there in any form permanent. Otherwise one could equally argue that the maximum extent of the Byzantine Empire in 811 included Pliska because, hey, before his defeat Nikephoros I had just sacked it.... Which is the reason why these "maximum extent" maps are inherently problematic, they mostly exist to serve nationalist POVs. It is far better to show a polity at a specific point in time, rather than try to aggregate two centuries of shifting borders in a single map. Constantine ✍ 12:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Nikifor did sack Pliska, but shortly after was killed by Khan Krum, that's not what happened to Simeon, instead he went on to become Tsar of Bulgarians and Romans. Indeed he did control these territories and collecting a tax is more than enough prove that he did. The Romans had virtually no administrative presence in the southern Balkans at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.196.195 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Romans had virtually no administrative presence in the southern Balkans at that time." That's just an utter load of bullshit. Constantine ✍ 08:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The facts must really hurt you, if you're using such language. Citing your own work is a bit pathetic also.

You made a ridiculous blanket statement which has been comprehensively refuted, but instead of acknowledging that, you go on the offensive in a textbook WP:IDHT response. Whether I wrote these articles or not is beside the point; what is important are the sources cited there, which show that your statement above is utter nonsense, leaving open two possibilities: either you don't know, or you know and don't want to admit the "facts", i.e. you have an agenda. In both cases, the problem is with you, not with me or with the "facts". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The facts are that these territories were paying taxes to Bulgaria and were part of Bulgaria. You offer no facts, just blank statements. 38.100.196.195 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been established against use of the first, "greatest extent", map above, as it is unsourced and of dubious accuracy. User:69.65.95.83 has restored the map to the page, first in the infobox and now in the Golden Age section. I have reverted the addition three times, asking the user in edit summaries and on his talk page to discuss the addition here, which he has so far not done. But if no one else is going to oppose the addition, I will not continue reverting. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The first map is a location map lacking details and thus hardly suitable for the illustration of a section of the article I believe. For the ‘Golden Age’ section we might use Todor Bozhinov’s map, desirably amended to reflect the fact that the relevant territories north of Danube River used to be a consistently proper part of the country throughout the First Bulgarian Empire’s existence (with those northeast of the Danube delta having actually been inherited from the ancestor state of Great Old Bulgaria). Apcbg (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For Golden Age, why not use the fourth map, it does include the proper areas and doesn't have the inconsistency mistakes in the green one.

Do you mean the fourth or the fifth map? Apcbg (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please compare the map during the reign of Boris and the map of the infobox. No obvious errors? Do you actually mean that the First Bulgarian Empire was at largest extent during Boris, not during Simeon? Do you mean that during Boris the empire had outlet to three seas (Aegean, Black and Ionian), but during Simeon the empire lost its Aegean shore and actually decreased in territory?? Well, this is what the map claim to have been. It is well known, that during Simeon shores of three seas were under control and this was the largest extent. It is therefore called Golden Age. That Simeon's gain geographically included Thebes, the capital of the Theme of Greece (Hellas) between 918 and 927, which paid taxes, is supported by the sources mentioned above.5.53.178.145 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There is now an IP account and a new account (perhaps the same user) removing the maps that are supported here by several users. The IP user left a message on my talk page as well. Please discuss the maps and gain consensus before addition/removal, 130.204.92.231 & Veliko3. Page protection would also be helpful as discussion is on-going and the users adding alternative maps are not engaging here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A brand new account who's edit warring in favor of this map has recently emerged [[2]]. Being unable to add his favorite map in this article he adds similar maps in related articles [[3]]. Obviously this map [[4]] reflects tha same pov as the first Samuil's map here. The account avoids to provide a decent explanation (for example how Athens became part of Bulgaria under Samuil) and insist on the usual aggresive summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Supposed to be Europe in 900 AD, but euratlas.net offers a completely diferrent picture for that year [[1]]

Here are some good sources that clearly describe where Bulgaria was reaching in the XI and X century sources, so kindly stop removing the 814 and 1000 year maps. Veliko3 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the "some good sources" being one, which describes Krum's short-lived empire just before his death in 814, and with which no-one here disagrees. Which however is utterly irrelevant to the rest of the 9th century or the 10th century, and which also has no relation to the maps you are pushing for, esp. with regards to the supposed extent of Bulgarian control in Greece. Now stop edit-warring or you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Constantine ✍ 21:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You either have not read the source or you have an agenda. Short-lived? LOL, Krum is just one of the many rulers of the First Bulgarian Empire which lasted for centuries.. up until Peter I and Samuel the empire continued to control vast swats of Panonia, Wallachia and Moldova. Oh and Greece did not exist at that time and until the XIX century, but I assume you're referring to the most southern Balkan provinces of the Roman empire. Veliko3 (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sigh.... "Krum's empire" was short-lived in the same sense that "Napoleon's empire" was short-lived; learn to separate the ruler from the state. Krum's conquests were a temporary maximum. After his death, the Bulgarian Empire contracted again to its more core territories, just as with Simeon a century later. Generally, when discussing states that indeed lasted for centuries, one does not include territorial gains that coincided with a single reign (of normal duration, I am not looking at epoch-defining cases like Queen Victoria here) as being regular parts of the state in question, because these conquests were, by definition, temporary. That is why Mesopotamia is not really considered part of the Roman Empire, although conquered by Trajan; Egypt not of the Sasanian Empire, although conquered and administered (which is far far more than you can say about Simeon's raids in Greece) for twenty years by the Sasanians; or the Netherlands of France, although ruled by Napoleon for about a decade; etc ad nauseam. They are useful when included in "maximum extent" maps, but then the exact moment of the "maximum extent" must be defined and explicitly mentioned. Now, specifically for the maps File:814 Europe.png and File:Europe in 1000.png, they are so inaccurate and amateurishly made that their inclusion is a bad joke. There are many, far better, maps by actual historians that can be used for a general overview of Europe in these years, but of course they don't quite show the maximalist fantasy borders some people here fancy. Constantine ✍ 13:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

But the Empire's northern border didn't contract, yes it fluctuated a bit with the arrival of the Magars, but all in all up until the 11th century Wallachia, Moldova and parts of Panonia were part of Bulgarian Empire. Your opinion is different obviously, but again this is just your opinion. Good night. Veliko3 (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The source for the map you keep adding states "World Atlas, Berlin, 2011," which is so vague that it is of no use. Googling this term turns up nothing identifiable. You clearly have not attained consensus to add this map, so please stop. Also, the proper numbering format for centuries calls for "10th", not Roman numerals. Your editing has become purely disruptive, and if you continue, your editing privileges may be blocked. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of slavs vs Number of Bulgars

How do you know that

" It is likely that the original Bulgars were greatly outnumbered by the Slavic population " ?

cited sources are not good. Find better sources. Obviously, a tribe that was able to defeat 80 000 Roman army ( supported by navy) was of considerable size. In addition, they were able to do this next 3 centuries and half. Slavic people were peasants at that time, how they help Bulgars in this respect? Also modern genetic tests show that only 20 % of Bulgarians haplogroups are South Slavic (I2a) http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/bulgarians.html

what about this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulgars were a well organized nomadic warrior tribes which managed to politcally influence the Slavs and other autochthonous people of the region, and after the state was organized the name "Bulgar" spread as an ethnonym designation to the all people of the national "Bulgarian" state. The old historiography one-dimensional perspective of Slavs being mere peasants is abandoned, they were socially heterogeneous and because of that they were so well influenced by the Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Goths, Magyars etc., and actually help the building of a "stational" early medieval states.

According Eupedia (which summarizes research datas), the male population of the modern Bulgarian nation per Y-haplogroups belong (%); 4 to I1, 20 to I2a, 2 to I2b, 17 to R1a, 11 to R1b, 5 to G, 11 to J2, 3 to J1, 23.5 to E1b1b, 1.5 to T, 0.5 to Q and N. However, the genetics can not (!) be completely linked to the specific ethic group, more precisely, it is easy to link it with the contemporary small and homogeneous ethinc groups or in some other specific group cases where can be noted the homogeneous pattern, but not to the vastly heterogeneous tribal unions like those of Eurasian Avars, Huns or the early Bulgarian state which besides the ruling caste and warriors of original Bulgars also included Slavs, Vlachs and other autochthonous groups of people. Each Y-haplogroup can not be precisely linked with, like you said South Slavs, only because it is most prevaling. Some consider it autochthonous Pre-Slavic haplogroup, others of newcomers and progenitors of South Slavs, but the possibility of transition of people from one haplogroup to other haplogroup culture and ethnic identity - the actual heterogeneity, it is a fact.

According the studies, both I2a2 and R1a are considered prevaling haplogroups among Slavs and Indo-Iranian, I2a2 and E1b1b Balkanic-Dinaric, J1 and J2 as well G2a Caucasian and Greco-Anatolian. In summary, autochthonous A model (I2a2-E1b1b: 43.5%), autochthonous B model (I2a2-E1b1b-J2: 54.5%), and autochthonous C model (I2a2-E1b1b-J2-G2a: 59.5%). The autochthonous people, and especially Slavs (if we add R1a 17% → I2a2+R1a gives 37%, 60.5% according A, 78.5% according C model) were not a minority, but obviously a majority.--Crovata (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

here is my refernce page 308 https://books.google.se/books?id=-h5Z8CEA5bkC&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=old+great+bulgaria+turkic&source=bl&ots=XsbYbINOQ-&sig=j8-WOEjL1aJIgP4hQ39gIkA-rVI&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=g90HVZm5D5LYauzFgpgD&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCTgo#v=onepage&q=old%20great%20bulgaria Mehmeett21 14:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

These are just Turkish sh*t and wet dreams!!! Like first, Bulgars and Avars together came to these lands. Bulgars were smaller group than Avars, they were located in Wallachia, in present day Romania. There they got baptized by Byzantium and they moved to the right side of Danube river. It could not be the opposite. Bulgars couldn't be large population, because they had proto-Turcic look, small height and there is not such people not even in modern Turks. Next thing, if they were really proto-Turks, they should speak Turkic, not the Slavic language. And they could not be ever against Byzantium, as that was Holy Eastern Roman Empire. It was ONLY Roman empire back in those years. It was a seat of Christianity. So, I see here many stupidities. Btw, Croats were just "striking guard" of Holy Empire against barbarian North. So, Bulgars could be only the same to this, they would never let any barbaric horde nor empire to come so close to their Empire. And both Avars and Bulgars were quite barbaric. On the other side, Bulgars from the times of fall under Ottoman empire to the liberation didn't have any significant number of their population. It was always below 10 millions all the time, didn't contribute in any war nor lost large numbers of population, while for example Serbs in 1900 had the same population like for example English people in those years. Today, they are also below 10 millions, but lost the most of all other nations in endless wars. It could be that most of Bulgarians were actually Serbs and Slavs. Reason why they speak Slavic and not Turcic might be that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.71.233 (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually most "Serbs" all the way to the Bulgarian Morava were Bulgarians and the Serbian ethnicity as a whole was never larger than the Bulgarian.--Avidius (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My explanation about the genetics of Bulgarians is simple :

R1a and R1b comes from Bulgars(Huns) who were Indoeuropeans; yes - they were Huns but it doesn't mean that they were Mongols or Turks. This fact is obvious - European Huns were Europoids.

I2a comes from South Slavic peoples, E1b1b and J2 are local haplogroups

Also, it is my personal opinion - religion and language are not so important in tracing people's origin - I can change my religion for 30 seconds and I can learn the basics of some foreign language for 3 moths. :) Original language of the Bulgars was Tocharian and they acquired Iranian and Turkish borrowings during their movement from North China to Europe. Even today we have many tocharian words in the modern bulgarian language.

PavelStaykov, it is your POV and as such it is irrelevant and on Wikipedia no one cares about. And sign your posts on talk pages.--Crovata (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

science articles are not POV [5] you can use google translate to read it. PavelStaykov (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Pavel, the far most science articles you're waving with are outdated or not generally accepted theories, or are just theories of topics which are generally concluded, or disputed topics for which those specific sources can't be considered as definitive conclusion. The ruling caste of Bulgars and Huns by origin were not Indo-Europeans, yet the wast majority of the population of the Hunnic and Bulgar Empires were autochthonous Europeans. That's why there's almost none or low genetic remnants of Central Asian origin, yet only cultural remnants, like the name of Bulgars among Slavic population we know today as Bulgarians.--Crovata (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Also modern genetic tests show that only 20 % of Bulgarians haplogroups are South Slavic (I2a) originated in Finland
R1a and R1b comes from Bulgars(Huns) who were Indoeuropeans; yes - they were Huns but it doesn't mean that they were Mongols or Turks. This fact is obvious - European Huns were Europoids.I2a comes from South Slavic peoples, E1b1b and J2 are local haplogroups

What kind of an ignorant nonsense was that? I can't believe such statements are added here. At least do not write nonsenses for something which you lack anything close to basic knowledge.--92.247.116.157 (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict

At first it was unclear what "biased spam" the edit conflict was for, lately the invalid ISBN of a book seemed reasonable for removing it. Here is the same info that was removed, each supported by sources with valid ISBNs. The capital Pliska was called Plaskova was an older Slavic settlement prior to the Bulgar invasion[6] which is speculates suggestions and may be written. More importantly, after 972 the capitals are incorrect, Skopje does not seem to have been a capital, Samuil moved the capital not to Skopje and Ohrid, but to Ohrid and Prespa, later Ivan Vladislav after 1015 moved it to Bitol [7]

The government introduced Turkic traditions such as Tengrism and Khanism, Omurtag was the last khan with a Turkic name, then the Slav-named Malamir took power, which began a cultural change that ended with linguistic Slavonization, Christianization and abolishment of khanism after a few decades. [8].

At the beginning, most of the population that was north of the Danube did not speak Slavic, Bulgar, Greek or Latin, but other local languages, a small part was Latinized and spoke Proto-Romanian language (Vlach), which was mostly spoken southwards. The Dacian language, the old local language there, was spoken as late as the 7th century AD as most of the Dacians were not conquered by the Romans.[9]. Later the Empire expanded into Greek speaking regions southwards. The authentic official inscriptions from the Christianization of Bulgaria use Byzantine Greek and Middle Latin.

Kuber established a separate Bulgar state inside Byzantium in the Macedonian region in the 670s.[10]

Bulgarian Orthodoxy was created after the East-West Schism, so this was after this state was ended, then "Christianity" or "Bulgarian Church" should replace "Bulgarian Orthodox". More importantly, there was a large dissatisfied section of people who followed the Bogomilism heresy, not the state church.[11]

Please, consider at least correcting the incorrect capitals.130.204.185.50 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Avar Khaganate and Bulgarian maps

Bulgarian maps missed the Avar empire. If you read about avars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_Khaganate) we see that proposed Bulgarian map is overlapped by Avar Khaganate. Guess what map is wrong ? Also a lot of original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.145.29 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

86.124.145.29 Which map in the article are you referring to?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

3family6 Also Pechenegs maps are overlapping Bulgarian maps !

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenegs All old Bulgarian maps are overlapping Avar and Pechenegs maps. There is no correlation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.99 (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Bulgaria across the Danube after 896

Map 1

Map 2 Bulgaria, 925

File:First Bulgarian Empire before the Magyar invasion.jpg

Map 3 Bulgaria before 896

Bulgarian Empire lost the lands north of Danube after 896, when Magyars conqered Transylvania and the Panonian Basin (see the map of Bulgaria under Simeon (893-927) in "Europe. A history", N.Davies, page 1245 - [12]). The first map, which lead a infobox before my edits is giving a wrong information, because the north border in 904 is Danube. I suggest a second map about that period ( early 10th c.) or the third map , with the lands, across the Danube before 896.--151.251.246.231 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Official Name

I believe the name in the infobox should be changed from "First Bulgarian Empire" to "Bulgarian Empire", as during the state's existence it was known simply as the "Bulgarian Empire". However, the name of the article and all other presences of the phrase "First Bulgarian Empire" should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.212.64.145 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We believe that your personal opinion must be supported by reliable sources to make such change. Jingiby (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The First Bulgarian Empire became known simply as Bulgaria[8] since its recognition by the Byzantine Empire in 681. This is in the article. So the infobox should really just say "Bulgaria." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.212.64.145 (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no wikipedia: reliable sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.Jingiby (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarian Ruler Titles Prior to Boris I

• 
  Stone inscription including ruler title Kanas bigi Omourtag

Kanasubigi is the only title we find for early Bulgarian rulers. Khan is a guess at best and we have no evidence anywhere that such a title was used for any Bulgarian ruler. Please let's stop with the creative storytelling and assigning titles that never existed. Because the title Khan has been used so much over the last half century, without proper evidence, it is now a common idea that Bulgaria was a Khanate or Khaganate for which also there is no evidence. Every time we allow ourselves to stray from original sources, the mistakes get bigger and bigger.

Here are some common words for ruler from other European languages:

• Old English: cyning "king, ruler"
• Proto-Germanic: kuningaz (source also of Dutch koning, Old Norse konungr, Danish konge, Old Saxon and Old High German kuning, Middle High German künic, German König)
• Finnish kuningas "king," Old Church Slavonic kunegu "prince"
• Russian: knyaz
• Bohemian: knez
• Lithuanian: kunigas

In old Germanic the approximate meaning is one who has superiority in a certain field or class.

All these are likely versions of an earlier common indo-iranian language that has differentiated over time.

Istoev (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)istoev

That above is simply your original research. Please, keep in mind the rule WP:No original research. Secondary modern academic sources in English from the 2000-s confirm as official Bulgar rulers' title was Khan. There is no reason to change it:

• Scholars treat “kana sybigi” as the official title (khan) of the Bulgar ruler. For more see: Florin Curta, Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500-1300) (2 vols); BRILL, 2019, ISBN 9004395199,p. 95.
• ... Boris “gave up the Bulgar title of 'khan' and substituted it with 'knjaz'... The explanation is that this was simply the most appropriate term for translating the Turkic “khan” (“kan”, “kana”, etc.), so that is how the title was rendered in the Slavic texts. In summary, we may say there was no change of ruler title [khan], while knjaz (prince) is just a translation of the old Bulgar appellation. Fore more see: Ivan Biliarsky, Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria; East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450; BRILL, 2011; ISBN 9004181873 pp. 209-213.
• The supreme ruler of the union, whom the Byzantines referred to as archon, kyrios, archegos or hegemon, styled himself khan/kana/kanasybigi, a title of Turkic origin which connoted a claim to universal, heavenly mandated rule. For more see: Panos Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831: East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450; BRILL, 2011, ISBN 9004206965, p. 71. Jingiby (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)