Talk:Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria

Title accuracy
As noted in the creator's talk page, there is no evidence that this war is specifically referred to as "Fifty Years War", at least in English, German, French or Greek-language sources that I have access to. If no evidence is provided over the next few days to support the current title, I will move it to the descriptive "Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria" (unless anyone else can propose a better name). Regards, Constantine  ✍  09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like "Fifty Years' War" is another name for the Cold war. I've done a little search on google books and the hits were either about it or the Israeli-Arab conflict. -- L a v e o l  T 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So what should we rename this article to? Is the above proposal OK or does it sound too Byzantine-centric? PS. It is curious actually that this all-important conflict didn't have an article until now... Constantine  ✍  09:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that there are no objections to renaming the article, but also no alternative proposals. I am therefore renaming it to "Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria". Constantine   ✍  11:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This title is inaccurate, since firstly there was no such thing as Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria, as when Tsar Ivan Vladislav died, he left no heirs and the Bulgarian aristocracy choose to join the Eastern Roman Empire. There were no great battles or city captures to speak of. Secondly, there this certainly didn't last since 968, since in 986 for example the Eastern Roman empire itself was in grave danger of becomming part of Bulgaria after the Traianovi Vrata battle. Thus, I propose that this page title is changed to Bulgarian-Byzantine wars of X & XI century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.167.49 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The title is perfect. Do not add fringe views. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I am Bulgarian. I never have heard anything about any 45 years war. I suggest a new title Western Bulgarian Kingdom as the reign of the Comitopuli is also popular in the history. Jingiby (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How about Western Bulgarian Tsardom - for title accuracy? ZomRe (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Jingiby (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Guys, sorry, but no. This article, insufficient as it is, is about a war (or series of wars) between Byzantium and Bulgaria, not about the Cometopuli state (which is covered by First Bulgarian Empire). The "Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria" starts with Tzimiskes in 971, before the Cometopuli began their wars of reconquest. And either way, such a radical move requires more than one or two editors. You are more than welcome to create a separate article for the Western Bulgarian Tsardom, but moving this article is not the correct way to do it. I will revert the move pending a full WP:RM discussion. Constantine  ✍  07:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am open to suggestions as to renaming the article, but please don't go ahead with your own moves, especially if they are flat out wrong like "XI Century Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars" (the wars took place more in the 10th century than the 11th, and in English, we don't use Latin numerals for the centuries). As for the completely ahistorical statements like "There was no conquest and certainly no such that lasted for 45 years. After Ivan Vladislav's death the nobility joined the Eastern Roman Empire.", we can do without them as well. I suppose the Battle of Spercheios and the Battle of Kleidion were just frat parties that went out of control, then, and Basil II was in reality the "Bulgar-lover". Constantine  ✍  08:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to forget the battle of Trajan Gates, where the Romans were destroyed. The fact of the matter is that the nobility joined the Empire and did keep all they had, this was indeed an offer by Basil II, there were no seiges or battles in 1018. If you know of some please share them. Going back in history 20 or even 50 years is really not helping here. I'd suggest a new title: Bulgarian-Byzanitine Wars of 10 & 11 century. Hopeful this will help. ZomRe (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

ZomRe, please, stop your ridiculous agenda for kept Bulgarian autonomy etc. It contradicts all reliable source and is extremly nonconstructive. It resembles nationalistic POV-pushing or even vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No one is pushing for autonomy, my sole request is to change the title, I'm proposing Bulgarian-Byzanitine Wars of 10 & 11 century, which more accurately depicts this page. Are you OK with that? ZomRe (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, no one is disputing that Bulgaria became part of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1018, it is just that it was not a violent event, but largely a successful diplomatic maneuver in 1018. ZomRe (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replied on my talk page. The 1018 events were obviously the culmination of a decades-long war and hence a military conquest, just like countless other examples in history. The fact that the Bulgarian remnant surrendered means nothing, as it was not voluntary but the explicit result of this war. If you seriously argue that the 1018 surrender of the Bulgarian nobility is unconnected to the 40+ years of almost continuous warfare that preceded it, or to the fact that by 1018 Byzantine troops had conquered most of the outlying provinces of Bulgaria and had penetrated its core region in northwestern Macedonia, then you really should stop writing now and go open a book on the subject. Any further changes based on this ridiculous WP:FRINGE notion will be reverted, and reported to the administrators. Constantine  ✍  23:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you're not very familiar with history. From 970 till 1018 there as 10 year period of peace, then Trajan Gates battle, which the Eastern Roman Empire lost with Basil II almost killed. In 1018 itself, there were no battles, and Basil II did meet with Bulgarian Boyars and did offer them to keep their own, then did re-organized western Bulgaria in a theme, did appoint a Bulgarian as Archbishop of Ohrid - Ivan of Debur and keep taxation as is and also was a relative of Ivan Vladislav. Now, mainly as a result of this Bulgarian nobility became part of the Eastern Roman Empire. There were no battles in 1018. Kindly, review the subject and come back to the table. Again, not looking to add the text of autonomy here, but conquest, and since 970 that's not serious. ZomRe (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is only your personal opinion. Keep it for yourself, till you are not providing at least three non-Bulgarian academic sources in support of your statements. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ZomRe: Apparently you are intent on promoting a particular view of events that has nothing to do with reality. In 1018 there may not have been any battles, but so what? There were battles aplenty in the years before that. Yes, the Bulgarian nobility joined the Byzantine one and received titles etc. but if you think that this shows any "special" status for Bulgaria within the Empire then you are mistaken. In most cases of conquest throughout history, the local nobility was either exterminated or suborned into the conquering state's upper class. There is no Bulgarian exceptionalism here... As for the dates, the fact is that since 927 and for 40 years, Bulgaria and Byzantium had been at peace. Then Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria happened, which re-ignited warfare and led to the conquest of eastern Bulgaria by John Tzimiskes and the separation of western Bulgaria under the Comitopuli. Then a few years where we know very little, then in 976 Trajan's Gates and then almost incessant warfare until 1018, when independent Bulgaria ceased to exist. It is clear that the period ca. 970-1018 forms a continuous process, which might be labelled "Byzantine-Bulgarian War (970-1018)" but which, by virtue of its eventual outcome, and by virtue of the fact that both Tzimiskes and Basil II were not intent upon a restoration of the 927 status quo, but upon conquest of the Bulgarian state, can be more succinctly labelled "Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria". So unless a better name comes along, we'll stick with that.Constantine  ✍  11:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with Byzantine-Bulgarian War (970-1018), even though it is not quite accurate. ZomRe (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So I guess in your world, "we'll stick with that" means "yeah, let's definitely move it to some other name", yes? That's it, you've exhausted my patience with your trolling. I am reporting you. Constantine  ✍  18:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We're having a content dispute here, not sure why you assume you're correct. I've presented specific facts to back up my point, which you haven't refuted. I'm also OK with the name you've mentioned. What is the big deal? How is the title Byzantine-Bulgarian War (970-1018) not better than the one reverted to? Doesn't it depict the whole article better? ZomRe (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing titles around without a coherent rationale (from "45 years war" to "Second Bulgarian Tsardom" and to "XI Century Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars" is a world of difference in meaning) and without discussing or establishing a firm consensus is not a content dispute, it is disruption pure and simple. Arguing that there was no conquest despite 40 years of warfare and failing to provide even a single reference to back up your unique assertion (per WP:EXCEPTIONAL) even though both Jingiby and I have explained to you repeatedly why your "theory" is nonsense, goes against every policy on editing in Wikipedia, not to speak of common sense. When you yourself cannot decide on which title you want (as long as it does not have "conquest" in it, apparently), when you make blatantly untrue statements like "There were no great battles or city captures to speak of.", then you are not engaging in content dispute, then there is nothing further to discuss. At best you are pushing a manifestly fringe POV, at worst you are trolling. I have better things to do than continue this charade. Constantine  ✍  21:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You haven't refuted any of my points that 1) Basil II did meet with Boyars and offered them to keep their own, 2)that he offered and did organize Bulgaria in a theme, 3) kept the Archbishop of Ohrid with Bulgarian as a head, 4) no battles were there in 1018 5) Basil II was a relative to Tsar Ivan Vladislav. If you refute any of those, I will rest my case. Yet, you haven't and continue to push an opinion not based on actual facts. ZomRe (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, let's give this another shot... Yes, Basil met with the boyars, but simply those that had not fallen or already surrendered to him over the previous decades. So it was not simply a "diplomatic maneuver", it was the full surrender of the last vestiges of the Bulgarian leading class, and Basil did not come alone or with diplomats, he came at the head of an army to extract that surrender. On 2) yes, he "did organize Bulgaria in a theme", but exactly this means the complete annexation and integration of Bulgaria in the Byzantine state. Being a theme means it was made into a regular province just like any other, not the autonomous status that you imply. You will notice, if you ever open a book on the subject, that nowhere in the former Bulgarian provinces were Bulgarian nobles installed as governors, as would have been the case in an "autonomous" territory. 3) is irrelevant to the political question, and either way you have to also consider that the Archbishopric of Ohrid was the independent Bulgarian Patriarchate before 1018, whereas Basil demoted it and subordinated it to Constantinople, a clear sign of submission. 4) is simply nonsense. First, there were loads of battles over decades before 1018, and even in that year, there was the siege of Dyrrhachium in early 1018, which is where Ivan Vladislav fell. It is after this event the surrenders of the boyars began, although there is also the little incident between Eustathios Daphnomeles and Ibatzes, which shows that some still thought of resistance. 5) is irrelevant to any point you are trying to make. Constantine  ✍  07:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We are making progress! 1) I am not stating or trying to imply that Bulgarian remained independent or autonomous while part of Byzantium. - We agree 100% 2) I agree that the Archbishop of Ohrid was under the Patriarch of Constantinople - We agree 100%, 3) Theme Bulgaria - we agree, 4) meeting with Boyars - we agree. Where we seem to have a disagreement is that I think we're not recognizing the true magnificence of Basil II's approach to the matter and his wisdom, namely that after Ivan Vladislav's death, he choose not to use force, but to take diplomatic means and he was successful - I mean this rare in that day and age and to debase this by naming the whole article as conquest and use language as destroyed, etc. does not make justice to the events that transpired. If that region had more leaders like Basil II or Ivan Assen II, it would probably be a single country... and that is why I feel it is important to highlight the non-violent side. Again - I completely agree that 1) Bulgaria was not independent or autonomous in that period, but a theme only and 2) that Archibishop of Ohrid was under the Patriarch of Constantinople. Does that clear it and are you OK to adjust the title now? ZomRe (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Our article on Conquest (military) defines it as "the act of military subjugation of an enemy by force of arms.", and that is precisely what we have here. The fact that the boyars did not fight until the bitter end or that Basil offered them terms means nothing: resistance to the end, just like complete extermination of an enemy, are exceptions rather than the rule throughout history. I really cannot follow your arguments, you have moved from implying a sort of autonomy to refusing that there were battles to not including the pre-976 events in this series of wars, to what? Claiming that the 1018 events was some Byzantine-Bulgarian fraternizing, all the while ignoring the preceding 40 years of mutual slaughter? This is not only WP:OR, it is nonsense. If you agree that Bulgaria was conquered, the logical step is to name this process "conquest" outright. If the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium says "He fought to destroy the Bulgarian state led by SAMUEL OF BULGARIA." and "Bulgarian resistance continued until 1018. Basil's conquests were organized into the themes", the language is pretty clear. Your personal spin and interpretation are of no interest here, rather than "make justice to the events that transpired" you are doing them injustice, by completely ignoring the long and bloody war that preceded and led to the 1018 surrender. Constantine  ✍  16:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're just being stubborn now :) if conquest is "the act of military subjugation of an enemy by force of arms" and since we clearly agree on the facts (theme Bulgaria, etc.), then it is clear that conquest is not the appropriate description. The statement that Basil's offer means nothing is not serious, as Roman Emperors don't make such offers just like that. Basil did it peacefully (you of all people should be proud of that), he did not continue in the tradition of Trajan Gates & battle of 1014. He certainly could do it, but he didn't and that has to be recognized and frankly what is the big deal with the title option you mentioned Byzantine - Bulgarian wars 970-1018? Can we find a compromise please? Again, I'm NOT trying to instill autonomy, independence or anything to that end. ZomRe (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've said what I had to say. Your argument of disconnecting the events of the surrender from the war that preceded it is ludicrous and contravenes the usage in every book on the subject. Period. Constantine  ✍  08:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You're clearly wrong and have not shown facts to support your POV. ZomRe (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

End of the First Bulgarian Empire as per Encyclopedia Britannica
According to Encyclopedia Britannica: Bulgaria lost its independence in 1018 and remained subject to Byzantium for more than a century and a half, until 1185. With the collapse of the first Bulgarian state, the Bulgarian church fell under the domination of Greek ecclesiastics who took control of the see of Ohrid and attempted to replace the Bulgarian Slavic liturgy with a Greek liturgy. Jingiby (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Also the theme of Bulgaria was formed only from the last remnants of Western Bulgaria and became a Byzantine province rulled by Greek governors. All local lords, who surrendered under the military power of the Empire, were transfered either to Constantinople or to Anatolia. Most of them were later assimilated into the Byzantine society. Bulgaria ceased de facto and de jure to exist. See also: Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250, Florin Curta, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0521815398, pp. 246-247.. The Archbishopric of Ochrid was a Byzantine resurrection of the Archbishopric of Justiniana Prima. Although the first appointed archbishop was a Bulgarian, his successors and the whole higher clergy, were Greeks. The Greek language quite early replaced Old Church Slavonic. All official documents, were written in Greek. No ethnically or linguistically "Bulgarian" church existed after 1018. Jingiby (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The above is your POV, the archibishop of Ohrid was Bulgarian in nature and specifically ruled by Bulgarian - Ivan of Debur, Greek never replaced Old Bulgarian as a matter of fact Bulgarian flourished greatly in that era. Here is a source: http://www.bok.at/en/geschichte.htm ZomRe (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not push me biased Bulgarian sources. As you can chack here that is not right: Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev,  Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810855658, pp. 163-164. Jingiby (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Title Please, stop reverting good faith edits on the page. The title about series of wars should have the years and both combatants in the title. This is more or less the standard Walker.D.Pace (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Title
Please, stop reverting good faith edits on the page. The title about series of wars should have the years and both combatants in the title. This is more or less the standard. Let's be reasonable. Walker.D.Pace (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Move war reported. José Luiz talk 20:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)