Talk:First Bulgarian Empire/Archive 1

Establishment and development of the Bulgarian state
"Yet another Bulgar tribe, led by Khan Asparuh, moved westward, occupying today’s southern Bessarabia. After a successful war with Byzantium in 680 AD, Asparuh’s khanate conquered Moesia and Dobrudja and was recognised as an independent state under the subsequent treaty signed with the Byzantine Empire in 681 AD. The same year is usually regarded as the year of the establishment of present-day Bulgaria.

In 681, the Bulgars founded a khanate on the Danube after defeating an army of the Byzantine Empire under Emperor Constantine IV in a battle south of the Danube's delta. Following their defeat, an agreement was made between the Bulgar ruler Asparukh and the Byzantine Emperor, giving the Bulgars the territory between the Carpathians and the Balkans range and yearly tribute from the Byzantine."

The two paragraphs are clearly redundant, and one should be deleted.Nicholai 22:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Simeon I
Since this painting was made in the 20th century, I think it's fantasy, not based on the way Simeon really looked like. If that's the case, we should write so in the caption. bogdan 19:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Map of The First Empire
Never in all the accounts I have read did it mention that the First Bulgarian Empire reach so far south. Never in all the other maps that I have seen did it show the Empire reaching so far south. The map in the article shows the Empire having conquered (or at the very least occupied) all of Thessaly, all of Epirus, and most of Thrace--and a good deal more. Looking through my collection of books on Byzantine and Balkan history, looking through the maps and the information set forth, I can't see evidence for those massive conquests. If the author of the article's map would like to give credible reasons for showing such territorial aquisition, then I won't complain any more. However, if not, then I call that the image be removed and replaced by something more historically accurate. I won't have a problem with the image as long as the information set out by it can be verified by credible sources. Ryan 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anybody can draw maps, so I tend to trust written sources. My Encyclopaedia Britanica speaks only of a Bulgarian empire in the former Roman provinces of Moesia, Thracia, and Macedonia. My main French source, Michel Mourre's Dictionnaire d'histoire universelle, does speak of a Bulgarian expansion on the territories of present-day Albania, Serbia, and Macedonia. So, maybe the map should extend quite a lot southward; but on what (scientific) grounds could one have it expand so much to the north - that is beyond my understanding.
 * Quatrocentu 07:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

to be honest, i probably overstepped with my...vehemence?...From my main English sources (as I can only speak English!), of Norwich, Treadgold, and the English translation of Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State, I didn't see anything stating that the Bulgarian Empire conquered so much territory--especially in Thrace and Thessaly. Personally, I'd like to see a map more in line with majority opinion--What that opinion is, I'm not completely sure, as it may be different for 'other language' authors. The northern expansion too is a question of debate--Althoguh the Bulgarians did at one time have that territory, I'm not sure if they may have lost it by Simeon's reign. Now, when you mention 'Macedonia', do you mean the 'Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia' or the Greek area of Macedonia? I think you mean the latter, but I'm not sure. Also, if it is the later, then how far does 'Macedonia' extend? Does it include all of Thessaly? Anyhow, to reiterate, I'd like to see a map on this article whose boundaries can be verified by credible sources. I think I should stop stressing that now. Ryan 09:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I have seen several maps but have no books with me as I now live in a different country. There is a book called "A Concise History of Bulgaria", (Cambridge Concise Histories) by RJ Crampton. If I'm not mistaken there were a few maps there. The conquest of Serbia and establishing a border with Croatia is well known. Pressing further down from Serbia into present Albania and Greece is also nothing new. I guess your question revolves around "how far"? John.V.Fine's book "The Early Medieval Balkans" states that Simeon's army reached the Gulf of Corinth on p.150. I found one this link http://www.vic.com/~tscon/romanity/friesian/romania.htm#bulgar-1, which is not an academic one and this one http://lccb.scripps.edu/~amatov/BG-910.jpg They both make me think that the expansion of the Bulgarian empire under Simeon is not a vast overstatement. Also check "The Bulgarians: From pagan times to the Ottoman conquest" by David Marshall. And do not get too obcessed with maps. Many of the old documents were rather inaccurate or at least biased. As far as Macedonia is concerned, the idea is of the whole region, which is in today's Bulgaria, FYROM and Greek Macedonia in the Greek North. However, if you're keen on checking the borders of that region according to written sources every 30 or 50 years, you'll probably find that they're not identical. (Kaloyan)

My Name is Angel Usunov

and my great grandfather was deported from a town near present day Thessalonik,after the Berlin Congress, and I am a Bulgarian as well as he was! Yes the Bulgarian culture presistet throughout the centuries and stayed alive during the rule of the Turks. There are plenty of records found in monastery chronics which were allowed to opperate during Ottaman. Please don't deny my nationality and I think Wikipedia should not allow history to forget people dying in a genocide because of heir nationality. Half of my family died and thousands of other Bulgarians were deported to an island in the mediteranean, to be rescued one year later by Bulgarian Military. In the 1st empire Macedonia was conceived as a Region of Bulgaria and that means all of it, FYROM part, Bulgarian part and Greek part. I hope the article stays like this as it certainly proves that Bulgaria had an extend to Thessaly.( I hope I am real to you, because you are trying to deny my existance.)

Angel Usunov

"My name is Bonzo the monkey and my great grandfather came from neverneverland.They once gave me a candybar in preliminary because i did i nice picture".Wake up man,this is Wikipedia.And year 2006.If u dont like it don't read it.If the majority of other users dont agree with something then it gets thrown out whether u like it or not.This is not a place for your historical/political propaganda. Oh, and...newsflash :Nobody denied your nationality.You just got it all wrong;nationality ,geography and DNA are three completely different things.

Bonzo The Monkey--NatK 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

About the Bulgar-Killer
Just a small addition: The former Greek President of Democracy, Konstantinos Stefanopoulos requested in 2004 that the title "Voulgaroktonos" (Bulgar Killer) ,given to emperor Vasilios II should be removed.From now on ,greek history books will not use this title because ,as he stated, it implies hostility towards the Bulgarian ethnos: "Considering the fact that nowadays our relationship with Bulgaria is really warm and the actions of this emperor were not of the most morale,they were not the kind of actions that should be remembered as monuments in our history.During my visits in the Balcan countries I am trying to reach an agreement with the local authoritarians that history books should express today's reality.The start will be given by our books."

link: http://chiosnews.com/cn119200440751PM0.asp (in greek)

His request was later accepted by the Greek Ministry of Education.--NatK 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'm sure he has good intentions for improving relations with neighboring states, but certain Macedonian nationalists, who consider Samuil to be macedonian king, will just love that. Whether it provokes hostility or not is a matter of debate, but one thing is for sure, history cant be changed. FunkyFly 23:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The translation from Greek is a bit difficult.In the way he says it ,he doesn't want to change or erase history,but to remove a title which is insulting to Bulgarians.Of course history cannot be changed.--NatK 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Emperor of Bulgars and Greeks=
I think there is a mistake. Simeon proclaimed himself Tsar of "BULGARS AND ROMANS", not "ROMANS AND GREEKS". If you thought that by Romans he meant greeke, well you`re wrong. The greeks were "Romiei". The "Romans" were the local vlach population, wich called and still call themselves "Romans". This distinction between "romei" and "romans" was aknowledged by the contemporary byzantine emperor Constantine VII. Greier 11:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC) I think it is very clear that he procliamed himslef Tsar of "Bulgars and Romei" which is probably translated as "Romans" in English as the Byzatians considered themsleves heirs of the Roaman Empire and the Romans. On the other hand the Vlach population did not call themselves "Romans" until much later. I should also note that Byzantians did not accuire greek identity until much later as well. Now to go back to Simeon he made that claim after his vicotry over the Byzatian empire and the "Romei" so it makes no sense to connect it with Vlachs.--fmrafka 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

accurancy dispute
I disagree with the naming of the article - the proper translation in enlgish would be more like First Bulgarian (Danube) State rather then empire - although the title "tzar" is to be considered equal to emperor I still hold it incorrect to label the state as an empire. I would challenge anyone to point a historical paper in Bulgarian that refers to the First Bulgarian State as an empire. There are handful of tzars who procliam themselves rulers of bulgarian, greeks etc. but this could hardly be interpreted as an imperial discourse. On the contraory I argue that primer goal for most rulers was gain control of teritory precieved to be Bulgarian which is apparent in the Second and Third Bulgarian state (the later devided into Kingdom(also an incorrect label in my opinion)and Republic but considered in general as the Third Bulgarian State). Furthermore the very nature of the State was to blend Slavonic and Bulgarian tribes with Slavs being the majority in probably all the territories ever to come under Bulgarian rule( there are handful of exceptions however). We should be extra careful with the selection of words as empire inplies conquering territories! Firstly national identity was predominantly absent at least not untill the dawn of the First Bulgarian State so Slavonic population was readily submitting to Bulgarian rule as soon as their habitat was cleared of (Byzantian)empire troops. Secondly the Bulgarian rulers never showed any aspirations towards territories considered predominantly foreign although some attemps/ambitions to conquer Constantinopol were present with some rulers. In general I will be very careful about the definition of empire and avoid to use the term regarding the federative organization of the First Bulgarian (Danube) State. -fmrafka-fmrafka 06:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)27/07/2006


 * "Empire" is what the first two Bulgarian States are commonly referred to in English, for example in Encyclopaedia Britannica. In Bulgarian it is commonly refered to as the First Bulgarian Tzardom (tsarstvo), which would literally translate to empire, not as the First Bulgarian Imperia, which in Bulgarian generally refers to foreign powers. Even the Byzantine Empire is more often than not referred to as Byzantium (Vizantia).
 * --Kroum 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User Kroum is right, the name First Bulgarian Empire is generally accepted in English-language literature. The meaning and the status of Bulgarian title Tsar in medieval Bulgarian ideology, derived etimologically from the title Caesar, is equivalent to the title Emperor. Bulgarian Rulers believed in their supremacy over Byzantine Emperors and because of this the traditional name of the Byzantines in Bulgarian medieval literature is simple "the Greeks". So the name First Bulgarian Tsardom is equivalent to the name First Bulgarian Empire.


 * R.J. Crampton's book A Concise History of Bulgaria refers to them as 'Kingdoms'.


 * Another example: Steven Runciman's book "The History of the First Bulgarian Empire", G. Bell & Sons, London, 1930. Please look at the article Tsar! About the same question in the Second Bulgarian Empire. Tsar Kaloyan (1197-1207) pretended to be recognized as "imperator Bulgarorum et Blachorum" in his correspondence with the Pope with argument that he was true successor of old Bulgarian Tsars like Petar and Samuil. In fact the Pope refused such hazardous and striking wish, as it seemеd in the eyes of every educated westerner from these times, and gave him the title "Rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum", which was equal to the titles of western Catholic Kings. Nevertheless Bulgarian rulers from Second Empire entitled themselves as "Tsars"... - Jackanapes 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It was an Empire
Ok, guys we are writing in the English version of Wikipedia and we should use the terms accepted in the West - Empire instead of Tsardom. After all it was an empire since it ruled over many peoples. I do not agree that Tsar stems from Cesar (it is a pure nonsense to me) but it is widely accepted and lets leave it like that. BTW Sar in the eastern Iranian languages means ... HEAD!!! Keep that in mind if you think that Bulgar language was not Turkic. Internedko 23:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pure nonsense? All right, than how do you explain "tsar" was originally written цѣсарь and then shortened? I don't know why you think sar has anything to do with this easy to explain etymologically title, but never mind. Todor→Bozhinov 18:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In which document it was written CESAR originally?Internedko 21:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Tale of Igor's Campaign (12th century, Old East Slavic, here) and an Old Bulgarian translation of Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (earlier than the 13th-14th century, here) are both among the countless examples of a medieval use of "цѣсарь". The use of the titlo when writing the word as "Tsar" also proves undeniably that it is a shortening. Mentioning the medieval OCS name of Istanbul, "Цѣсарьградъ" (shortened to "Царьградъ" in CS), is made quite needless by these proofs.
 * As a matter of fact, many of these alternative linguistic theories on the origin of the Bulgars fail when they begin listing Bulgarian words of allegedly Iranian/Turkic/Martian origin by ignoring long established and proven etymology.Todor→Bozhinov 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Toshko thanks for taking the time to asnwer but you did not convince me at all. As you know the first use of Tsar in Europe is documented in the 9th century with Petar I, the son of Symeon (who called himself basileus BTW, not tsar). Titling Symeon as Tsar is a later anachronistic interpolation. However, ALL the sources you provided are EASTERN Slavonic (Russian) or Bulgarian translation of russian texts as earliest one is from about 11 century. NONE of them is original Bulgarian. Since the Russians were NOT Bulgarians, they had no way of knowing the word Tsar. The earliest use of Tsar in Russian is attested in Petar I after he conquered Tatarstan (Volga Bulgaria). As far as I know in Bulgaria Cesar sounded as Kesar???

The history is full of long established delusions. BTW the title Archon which is so often attested in the sources as the title of the Bulgarian rulers is literaly translated in Greek as "the head one" or loosely as "the first one". So Archon is a mere translation of Tsar.Internedko 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now: archon is not a translation, it is an Ancient Greek title (history of Athens anyone :)) much older than the Bulgarian state. Also, exactly the phonetic difference (/ʦ/ and /k/) between Kesar (minor Byzantine title) and Tsar proves that Tsar was directly inherited from the Latin Caesar (and not through Greek). Just like Kral as a title stems from the name of Charlemagne through metathesis.
 * The sources I provided are, as I said, just some of the many. I chose these because they are easily available on the web. The titlo used by older Bulgarian manuscripts clearly states it is a contraction (read Tsar and titlo). Here you can see "цѣсарь" being used in the Codex Suprasliensis (East Bulgaria, 10th-11th century).
 * As for Russia, the title was first used by Ivan III (15th century) as his state grew into an empire. In fact, 17th-18th-century Peter I of Russia was the one who officially substituted Tsar with Imperator, and not the one who introduced Tsar as a title, of course. And the title was first mentioned in Russian manuscripts in The Tale of Igor's Campaign, 12th century, which has nothing to do with Peter I of Russia, as you know.
 * Simeon is called Tsar in Mostich's Inscription ("... при Симеоне цри..."), which is from the same period (10th century, not 9th). It is not anachronistic or an interpolation.
 * I really hope this is convincing now :) Todor→Bozhinov 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

At first it sounds convincing but when you look close at the 'facts' you quoted ..well it is another story. :)

First of all this use 'цесар' in East Bulgarian manuscript conserns not a BULGARIAN ruler but someone called Konstantin (probably Constatine I who was A cesar, coz he was a Roman).

Secondly, the inscription of Mostich ...he-he, Mostich died at the times of Petar, who was the first to use title and it was inlerpolated back to include Symeon. As far as I know there isn't a written reconrd from Symeon times which quotes him as a Tsar. Even if Symeon used the title this is not the point here.

About the russian Peter I, yes you are right, it wasn't him it was Ivan III, I didn't bother to check the facts, because the point was that the one who first conquerred the Volga Bulgars was the one to attach the title Tsar to his name. As for the tale about Igor, I'll have to know more about it to prove you wrong again.:)

BTW do you know where I can download Old Cyrillic font for my Windows because I can't read some of the characters?? Internedko 14:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Foreign ruler? I don't actually see the difference, sorry, and I'm confused by your peculiar argumentation, statements and reactions. You simply have to look at Tsar and titlo to find all the thorough evidence you'd ever need.
 * As for Mostich, I don't see how and why a person who served both rulers would "interpolate" the title to Simeon only several decades after his death.
 * I'm tired of repeating just how indisputable the etymology of the word is, and as I see you simply refuse any argument or proof I provide with some peculiar response, there's no sense in going on, I think. I mean, it's OK to believe in what you believe, but don't disregard a long-proven etymology. Todor→Bozhinov 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Цесар was only applied to non-bulgarian rulers and Цар to Bulgarian ones. These are two different words which stem from different roots and jsut happen to have similar meaning and spelling. Anyway I don't want to argue either, you started. When I have enough fact I will prove it.Internedko 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bulgars
I have some things to write about this article, because it is apparently written by someone who doesnt have any idea in the most common theories about the origin of the Bulgars. The theory, supposing that Bulgars were actually Huns, is not one of the most popular. They may have been close to them, but Bulgars being Huns is like me being Ronaldinho.:D Second - the origins of the Bulgars are from Central Asia, which is conclusively proven. What is not still known if they were a Turkic or an Indian tribe. The first "Turkic" hypothesis supports the claim Bulgars came from what now is north-western China. The second supports the other claim, that they came from northern India. The problem comes from the fact, that ancient Central-Asian Bulgar states existed in various locations, from modern-day northern Afghanistan (The country there was called Bactria by the Greeks) to what is now Eastern Kazakhstan. This makes it difficult to prove the roots of this tribe. I also didnt like the fact, that some of the articles written about the First Bulgarian Kingdom look like pop-science. If u dont know what is ironically called "pop-science", I'll tell you. Pop-science consists of publishing short facts about certain things, and often these facts are either incorrect or pure fantasy. The function of pop-science is more entertaining, than professional, but it is considered often as real science. So I can say that the article about the Bulgars is pure pop-science. It doesn't include many important facts, for examples it doesn't tell anything about the two most powerfull Bulgar dynasties - Dulo and Vokil. Important information about the states of Volga Bulgaria, Old Great Bulgaria and the Bulgar state in north-east Italy is either too short or missing, and there is almost anything about Khan Kubrat and his sons - Kotrag, Bat Bayan, Kuber, Asparuh and Altzek. By the way, Tangra is not a Turkic god, he's a pure Bulgarian god, and Tangraism is not a monotheistic religion - there was another Bulgarian god, called Baal. From him comes the name of the Balkan Peninsula - Baal (God) and Khan (leader) - Baalkhan. IIf you wanna see more info, or if you're someone who just can't accept that Bulgars have existed long before many other tribes, just visit http://tangra.bitex.com/eng/foundation.htm. Have a nice day

I have read quite about the origin of the Bulgarian or Bolkhi people known to the Armenian's. The most commonly accepted theory in Bulgaria at this moment is that the Bulgars originated from the Pamir Mountians, in Tajikistan. I have also read that there are links between an ethnic group that lived in this region who were ruled by an demi-god figure called Kardama from a famous piece of literature called "The Ramayana". Though i believe the last statement that i said to be false there are always links to the ancestery of the Bulgars. Considering that two of the Dulo Khans in the "imennik of Khans" are seen as legends more than factual proof it is hard to define correctly the origins of the Bulgars. I believe that this should be resolved in later times when concrete proof of Bulgar origin comes into light. I know that Bulgaria no longer has the resources to trace its history in the way that it did during the communist regime especially during the time of Ludmila Zhivkov. But with the globilisation of the world Bulgarian historians have or should have started to gather more information from sources that had been deemed unacceptable in the past regime.

I do find it funny that the ancestry of the Bulgars has changed from different tribe to different tribe quite a few times over the past century, especially in western sources. For the origins of the Bulgars to be included in any form of encyclopedia there must atleast be concrete foundation for the theory to rest on. --Whiskey Blues123 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One cannot say the that Bulgars were descendents of Huns. Pure and simply the Huns were a political group, not an ethnic one. They were mixed peoples. Similarly, the Bulgars were ethnically mixed stock, but a relatively new political creation. Yes, some of the people that were under Huns now came under Bulgars, but they are not successors. The Huns political identity was dead. Hxseek (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Former country?
I'd really like to see that one explained --Laveol 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a country called the "First Bulgarian Empire" ? Nope. - Francis Tyers · 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is a country called Bulgaria.
 * Is it true that in your logic, Poeple's Republic of Bulgaria is also a former country, because now it not called PR Bulgaria now but only Republic of Bulgaria???
 * "First Bulgarian Empire" is only a modern conditional form; no Bulgarian or foreigner who lived in the Middle Ages referred to this country as "First Bulgarian Empire" but as "Bulgaria"; did you understand that??? --Gligan 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I dispute the usage of the word "Bulgaria" by the common people. Do you think you can find any usage of that word in any pre-11th century Slavic/Turkic document? I thought that the -ia ending version was used originally only in Latin/Greek documents.
 * But this discussion is irrelevant. It's simply not the same country, there was no continuity. bogdan 09:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And sth else: the official full name of the country was Tsardom (Empire) of Bulgaria from the period (913-1018;1185-1396;1908-1947), so you see, that even this official name was used only 60 years ago. In this logic you should even split the First Empire into three former contries because the official name used to be also Khanate of Bulgaria (681-864) and Principality of Bulgaria (864-913).
 * And which is the Slavic form according to you???? The Byzantines use the name "Bulgaria" from 7th century in their documents, and the medieval Bulgarian writers such as Chernorizets Hrabar, Ioan Exarch or Patriarch Eutimius use the name Bulgaria and Bulgarians in their works, so I must disagree with you for the use of Bulgaria by the ordinary people.
 * I know that the Romanians should be jealous that the history of their country is much shorter, but this does not mean that they should change the facts... Tell me reasons that make sense that the First and the Second Empire have no direct continuity in the face of contemporary Bulgaria. Even your own name shows the great influence which my country had in the region during the Middle Ages... --Gligan 09:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell me reasons that make sense that the Roman Empire has no direct continuity in the face of contemporary Romania. :-) bogdan 10:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not answer. Does it mean that you have no serious reason?! --Gligan 10:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But this discussion is irrelevant. It's simply not the same country, there was no continuity. bogdan 09:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I just knew it - this is what you want to suggest with this, isn't it? That's why I removed the tags before and that's why I'm going to remove it again. Let's just clear something - we're talking about one and the same people, about one and same let's call it core territory, about one and the same culture even (or at least a form of culture that has evolved from the former), so what's your real point? Lay your REAL points? Why do you need an article about a country to be tagged as formal? And as Gligan has asked you a numerous times: Why isn,t Republic of Bulgaria tagged in such way? Questions, questions, questions...any answers? --Laveol 09:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I see Bogdan is quite good in trolling - I will not go into an edit war with you, just want to hear REAL points why there should be such a tag. And by real I mean reasons stronger than the ones that would convince a 3 year-old child. Really --Laveol 10:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is contemporary Bulgaria a direct continuity of the First and Second Bulgarian Empires:

1) The population did not change, it remained Bulgarian; so all three states are states of the Bulgarian People. If you consider the Empires as different countries because there are no direct heirs of the dynasties that ruled tham, this is NONESENSE, because there are also no direct descendents of the first Spanish, English or French kings. 2) After each period of foreign rule, the country was liberated, not established; and all the leaders of the rebelions claim that they restore the rightful Bulgarian authorities from the last free rulers. In his letters to the Pope Kaloyan points out that he wants his Emperor title because it was the title of his predecessors from the First Empire; naming Samuil, Peter and others. In 1908 Ferdinand proclaims himself "Tsar" (though internationally he was recognised only as King because the last independent rulers were also Tsars, not Kings. In 1762 was written the first History of Bulgaria and the former Empires were named as the country of the Bulgarian poeple. 3) That same territory was constantly inhabited and dominated by only one people, the Bulgarian for more than 1,300 years. 4) The official names of that countries were not "first, second or third" Empires or States, but Empire, Khanate, Republic of Bulgaria; these numbers are created by the contemporary historians. --Gligan 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there were countries called the Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Those are former countries. Get it? - Francis Tyers · 10:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And still you say United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not the same as Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is quite clear by the name. It has certain names like ...and Northern Ireland or ...and Ireland whish make them totally not one and same thing. I acknowledge the fact that you try to give us reasons, but the case with Bulgaria is not the same. At the time the country was called simply Bulgaria as it is called now 9not the same with the UK though). I see that you would only look here if someone reverts the article, but I'm out of revertions for today, so I'll just hope on your good will and good reasons for this, what I'll call nonsense till given reasons. I forgot the Get it part sorry for that --Laveol 15:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Languages
I was wondering if the official language of the Empire was modern Bulgarian, because that's what the infobox says. Is this true? i Nk u b u ss e ? 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch - it's actually Old Bulgarian - it leads to the disambiguation page which explains it. -- L a v e o l  T 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Awarded
Could this article be nominated?--Vojvodaen (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to be nominated but I don't think it is going to meet the requirements at that stage : ) --Gligan (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Borders of the First Bulgarian Empire
I noticed some of you were disputing the map of the First Bulgarian Empire. The map is accurate and there are many sources, however, the best ones are extremely difficult to find online. So here are some quick references that can easily be found with Google Books:

"The borders of the Bulgarian Empire, which streched from the Adriatic Sea to the Aegean Sea and to the Dneiper River (north-east of Bulgaria) was the largest and most powerful in Europe at that time." - p.14 Book: Bulgaria, Author: Paul Greenway

"That the pope asked Branimir, dude of the Croats, to help John reach Bulgaira, suggests that the land round began in his domain. Dalmatian Croatia reached at least some distance inland and it appears to have had a common border with the Bulgarian Empire." - p. 557 Book: Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300-900, Author: Michael McCormick

"Krum defeated the remnants of the Avars and united the Pannonian Bulgars with their fellows in the Balkan Peninsula. South of the Balkan Mountains a line of Byzantine fortresses prevented further advances into Thrace. Nonetheless, Bulgaria now extended from the northern Carpathian Mountains eastward to the Pruths River (or perhaps even the Dniester) and the Black Sea, and in the west touched the Frankish Empire on the Tisza River in Hungary. Khan Krum's successors gained additional lands in Macedonia, while Khan Boris (r. 852-89) arrogated to himself the exalted title of "Tsar" (i.e., "Emperor"). The late 9th and early 10th centuries were the GOlden Age of this First Bulgarian Empire. During the brilliant reign of Tsar Symeon (r. 893-927), Bulgaria not only dominated the Balkan Peninsula but also became the center of an impressive Byzantine-oriented civilization." - p. 16 Book: East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, Author: Jean W. Sedlar

"At the height of its power during the ninth century, the Bulgarian Empire expanded from its base along the lower Danube to include all of present-day Bulgaria, Romania, eastern Hungary, Macedonia, Albenia, and northern Greece, regions that at the time were ingabited by Slavic tribes under the rule of the Byzantine Empire." - p. 288 Book: Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples, Author: Paul R. Magocsi

''The Tzar Simeon established the Bulgarian supremacy over Servia, and carried his conquests deep into the lands of the Empire. In Macedonia and Epeiros the Empire kept only the sea-coast, Aegean and Hadriatic; Sardica, Philippopolis, Ochrida, were all cities of the Bulgarian realm. Hadrianople, a frontier city of the Empire, passed more than once into Bulgarian hands. Nowhere in Europe, save in old Hellas, did the Imperial dominion stretch from sea to sea. - p. 389'' Book: The Historical Geography of Europe, Author: Edward Augustus Freeman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivopld (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Ivopld (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What?!
Why on earth there are Greek words in the article instead of edit?!?! They must be removed. --Gligan (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"muslim threat" = neutrality?
Hey :) newbie here, feel free to throw bananas at me if I get this wrong :D I'm not 100% sure on wiki-quette yet, but starting to read this article I was a bit thrown by this passage:

"The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time. In 717-718 the coalition of Byzantines and Bulgarians decisively defeated the Arabs in the siege of Constantinople thus saving Eastern Europe from the Muslim threat and later destroyed the Avar Khanate expanding its territory to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Bulgaria served as an effective shield against the constant invasions of nomadic peoples from the east in the so called second wave of the Great Migration."

Maybe this is totally acceptable in war documenting, I don't read a huge amount of war literature :) does everyone else think this is a fine and unbiased term to use? Cherryleaf (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryleaf (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, a better wording'd be the Arabian threat, I guess. It does sound a little bit odd that way. -- L a v e o l  T 12:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that it was an Arab invasion and attempted conquest of Europe (spreading both Arabization and Islam in the process, like in Northern Africa) that was defeated on the Balkans and in France but succeeded on the Iberian Peninsula. Apcbg (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your feedback! That really helped. I changed it to "(...)thus saving Eastern Europe from the threat of an Arab invasion and Muslim conquest of Europe,(...)", and mixed up both suggestions hehe. Of course, if anyone can think of wording this better, please do. I am no expert, by all means! :) Cherryleaf (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kubrat sword.jpg
The image Image:Kubrat sword.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things
A Serbian state came into existence as a dependency of the Bulgarian Empire and was later fully subordinated under the general and possibly Count of Sofia Marmais

The Serbian state came into existence c. 840, not as a dependency to Bulgaria, but as an opposition to it, supported by the Byzantines in an attempt to halt the Bulgarian advance westward. Yes, much of its time in the 9th and early 10th century, Serbia was vassal to bulgaria. So a slight difference.

Also i added a map of Bulgaria in late 800s, and swapped Thomas Lessman's 800 AD map with a more aesthetic one localized to Balkans Hxseek (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

KINGDOM
It was in fact a Kingdom. So both Empire and State are wrong. In Bulgarian you say 'Първо българско царство'. Which translates as 'The first Bulgarian Kingdom' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.214.241 (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire as predecessor
Are you sure the Byzantine Empire should be listed as a predecessor? The two states hardly had anything in common, besides part of the territory. It's more the case of an expansion of an independent kingdom/khanate or whatever. It's not like Bulgars rebelled against Byzantine dominance as is the case with the Second Bulgarian Empire. -- L a v e o l  T 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead of this article has serious issues
Specifically:
 * The sources used to call it "First Bulgarian State" are low quality websites such as www.macedonian-heritage.gr and www.hunmagyar.org. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel and starting to dig.  Second, it is highly disingenuous because the "f" in "first" is not capitalized.  This makes a world of difference between a state being the first Bulgarian state, and it being called as such in the literature.  Only high quality sources should be used for this, and the "f" should be capitalized.  In any case, "First Bulgarian State" is redundant with "First Bulgarian Empire".
 * Secondary sources from recent history books have now been added. Kostja (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim that the state was known as "Danube Bulgar Khanate" only between 681 and 864 is not based on any sources, only on some users' dislike of the term. It is known as such in the Western literature today, it is not an autonym.  Also, the claim that "First Bulgarian State" is completely subjective and again solely based on one user's dislike of the term "Danube Bulgar Khanate."
 * After 864 the title of the Bulgarian ruler was no longer Khan, therefore Khanate is incorrect. Do you have any sources using such a name for the period after 864? Kostja (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Names that are not applicable for the whole existence should not be in the lead. Danube Bulgar Khanate is a term used to differentiate it from the Volga Bulgar Khanate, as I have written and as you have removed. You can find sources calling the country Macedonian Empire, Samuil's State, Western Bulgaria but this does not mean that they should be included because neither of this can describe the country as a whole. You can say that Asparukh ruled over the First Bulgarian Empire, you cannot say that Peter I ruled over the Danube Bulgar Khanate. --Gligan (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim that The official name of the country since its very foundation was Bulgaria. is sourced to a single Bulgarian language source from 1963. Again, unacceptable.  This needs to be much more solidly sourced.
 * Every effort is made by Bulgarian editors to hide the fact that the Bulgars were a Turkic tribe. This is beyond question, solidly sourced, and should be mentioned in the lead.
 * That is disputed - see here:. Also, the relevance of this statement is doubtful. Kostja (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And above all I have never seen in any lead thing saying Slavic Bulgarians, Slavic Russians, Turkic Magyars. Do you understand how ridicoulous you sound? --Gligan (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim that it was a "rival to the Byzantine Empire" is also PEACOCKy and unsourced.
 * It fought multiple wars with the Byzantine Empire. What madditional evidence you need? Kostja (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim that Khan Tervel was recognized as Caesar is misleading. This is not as obvious as it appears and needs to be put in proper context in the body of the article, not casually mentioned in the lead in PEACOCKy form.
 * The claim that Indeed, Bulgaria served as an effective shield against the constant invasions of nomadic peoples from the east is PEACOCKy and completely unsourced, nor is it sourced elsewhere in the article.
 * The claim that The Bulgars brought new construction and battle techniques to Europe. is also PEACOCKY and unsourced, either in the lead or elsewhere in the article.
 * The claim that The Inner town had a sewerage and floor heating long before cities such as Paris and London. speaks for itself.
 * As do the claims that Cyrillic alphabet was developed there and that Preslav and Ohrid are the second oldest universities in Europe. WP:REDFLAG, anyone?
 * The issue over the Cyrillic alphabet is well sourced. It is known that it was invented in Bulgaria. In fact what is your theory? That it was made in Constantinople?

In summary, the lead reads like a litany of PEACOCKy claims ("the greatest this, the oldest that..." with very little to no sourcing either in the lead or elsewhere in the article. Athenean (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In summary PEACOCKy, says Athenean, in whose city's lead is written "the cradle of Western civilization" (no not PEACOCKy at all), "the birthplace of democracy", "Parthenon, widely considered a key landmark of early Western civilization". Who says PEACOCKy???
 * And also Athenean's edits were once again unconstructive. When you last removed me you did not even try to keep the conversion of the sources I have done which is required if the page is one and the same. --Gligan (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, can we all calm down? And what has Athens to do with this article and Athenean as a user? Let's not engage in stupid tit-for-tats. If some assertions are made, they should be referenced. I have also some issues with the lead, which selectively highlights certain moments in the history of the Bulgarian Empire and draws sweeping over-generalizations from them. Some of my concerns I have already exposed here. Constantine  ✍  09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * He was the first to start with that and above all writing in capital letters and unfortunately I am such type of person who cannot let such tone unanswered.
 * Well, Constantine, since we are discussing the leading section here, write down your concerns and the way you think it would be better to be rewritten. You are really the only reasonable person such issues can normally be discussed without evolving in stupid childish argues. --Gligan (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's see. First, as a general rule, per WP:LEAD it should summarize the article and have no need of citations since the stuff is to be expanded upon & referenced below. Now, in more detail: "The country was known since its very foundation as Bulgaria." implies that this was something of an official name. It is also too awkwardly placed. I suggest simply merging it into the first sentence as "...also known as the First Bulgarian State[1][2] or simply as Bulgaria...". Now, on the history. I would suggest adding a short reference of where the Bulgars came from, since they were not an indigenous people. Also a reference to the fact that they mingled with the local populations and became slavified. I would also remove the over-generalizations from the history section, and emphasize the more varied aspects of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations in particular. Something along the lines of (comments in parentheses):
 * "As the state solidified its position on the Balkans, it entered on a centuries-long process of close interaction with the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria emerged as Byzantium's chief antagonist in the Balkans, resulting in several wars. The two powers however also enjoyed periods of peace and alliance, most notably during the Second Arab siege of Constantinople, where the Bulgarian army played a crucial role. Byzantium had a strong cultural influence on Bulgaria, which also led to the eventual adoption of Christianity by Bulgaria in 864 (Military feats are all well, but I think that the cult. influence is undeniable and along with the Christianization the most persistent legacy of Byzantine-Bulgarian interaction, hence it must be mentioned).
 * In the north, the Bulgarians came into repeated conflict with the nomadic steppe peoples from Eastern Europe. After the disintegration of the Avar Khanate (changed because it was Charlemagne who actually dealt the Avars the death blow), the Bulgarians expanded their territory up to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Later the Bulgarians confronted the advance of the Pechenegs and Cumans, and achieved a decisive victory in 896 over the Magyars, forcing them to establish themselves permanently in Pannonia.
 * In the late 9th century and early 10th centuries, under Tsar Simeon (he is very notable) and following a string of victories over the Byzantines, the Bulgarian empire reached its apogee, comprising most of the Balkans. The Byzantines eventually recovered, while Bulgaria was crucially weakened by a Byzantine-sponsored Rus' invasion in 968 (this must also be mentioned. It was the Rus' invasion that first dissolved the Bulgarian state). A revival under the Cometopuli followed, but led to a decades-long war with Byzantium under Basil II which culminated in a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Kleidion in 1014. By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire, and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist. Bulgaria remained under Byzantine control until it regained independence with the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185. (rephrased because "succeeded" is not quite correct here.)"
 * This is to give a general impression. A few other rulers might be mentioned (Krum?, Tervel?), or a few other events (suggestions?) I am less knowledgeable about the cultural aspects, but I would suggest a larger and more generalized presentation too (this of course is also contingent on finding some good sources for the relevant sections in the main text). From what I remember about the ODB's entry on Bulgaria for instance, it emphasizes three areas: architecture (eclectic use of Romano-Byzantine models with some strikingly Bulgarian elements), the ceramic tiles (possible Arabic influence?), and literature (mostly ecclesiastic translations etc after the 880s). "The Inner town had a sewerage and floor heating long before cities such as Paris and London" this I'd remove. It was a standard feature of Greco-Roman civilization for a millennium already, and the comparison is not really very useful. The same with the last sentence. The important role on (mostly religious) learning in the early Slavic world is already well made, without needing to resort to anachronistic comparisons (What exactly do we call a "university"? Do the famous schools of Al-Andalus not count as being "in Europe", etc..) Constantine  ✍  14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I knew that you would eventually come out with something acceptable. Indeed that Byzantine cultural influence has to be mentioned. As for Krum or Tervel, we might mention Tervel in connection with the siege of Constantinople; while Krum's significant success at the Varbitsa Pass I don't know how to include, wouldn't that make too much detail? Also, we might provide link to the Medieval Bulgarian Army in that sentence "The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time". An event we might mention can be the emergence and spread of the Bogomils.
 * For the cultural section, your ideas are also good, you should try to make the whole paragraph to see how it sounds. Considering the comparison between Pliska's sewers and London and Paris that is true but obviously redundant but after all mentioning the sewerage system in the capitals is important to me because that was quite rare for the Middle Ages when the achievements of the Antiquity were lost and above all both Pliska and Preslav were build and planned by the Bulgarians. Concerning the universities, well, the Magnaura school itself is not a university in the wide-spread term but something like a predecessor. I can't find sources, but I think I have met somewhere that the literary schools of Preslav and Ohrid can also be considered predecessors of higher education (I have to ask Todor Bozhinov to look for sources). So, what I suggest is to try to paraphrase the sentence and not necessarily include the word "university". --Gligan (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, could the other editors here also say their opinion on the proposed history section above? I agree that Tervel should be added, he was perhaps the most important early ruler. Bogomilism is a very good point. We could introduce it right after the Christianization: "As a reaction against the Byzantine church doctrines, the influential sect of Bogomilism emerged in Bulgaria in the 10th century." How is this for the ethnic origin: "Over the centuries, the originally Turkic Bulgars mixed and merged with the local populations. These were chiefly Slavs, whose language the new Bulgarian nation adopted." Any further suggestions are welcome. Constantine  ✍  17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

First Bulgarian state is a frequently used term, especially when talking about the three Bulgarian state (as the modern Bulgarian state was not an empire and is not even a monarchy even more). Therefore its inclusion is completely justified as a valid alternate name. Kostja (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if it is referenced as the "First Bulgarian State" (note the capitals), then obviously it is OK. :)Constantine  ✍  10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Specific sentences in the lead, like these mentioned above, make this article look like a huge peacock, not to mention that the -cn- tag which is dominant now (and pleaze 'read' the book before inserting []). Thanks to Athenean the article's quality has been considerably improved with additional historical data, supported with wp:rs, nothing to do with pc. style expressions. Characteristically [], the article claimed that Bulgarians' origin was nearly unknown... accidentally avoiding the Turkic link...Alexikoua (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning that, Athenean had made valuable edits in improving the article's English and grammar, which I specially thanked him. The source I used was used to describe the significance of the Siege of Constantinople and it is unbelievable to me that it doesn't mention the Bulgarians. After all, it was the Bulgarian army that defeated the Arabs when they tried to break out. I haven't read the source, does it really miss to mention the Bulgarians? --Gligan (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Other then the many issues at the lead, and the fact that its too long and flamboyant.


 * "The country was known since its very foundation as Bulgaria." Ref 6 is in Bulgarian,and 7 redirects to the article itself.
 * "The Bulgars brought new...after the University of Constantinople." has to be moved below and then edited.
 * The entry to the article has to be 1st.introductory 2.generic but still related to its birthMegistias (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally, the Bulgarian historians are the most competent on Bulgarian history and just ignoring them is unthinkable. We all know that the sources for the Bulgarian history are somehow dispersed because we rely mainly on Byzantine contemporaries whose primary work was to describe Byzantium, not Bulgaria and only the Bulgarian historians have made thorough examination of all known pieces of information concerning our history kept in different locations around the world. It would be an improvement to have citations of Bulgarian authors. And the book of Andreev and Lalkov the Bulgarian Khans and Tsars is quite a reliable source and I wonder why Alexikoua removed it. I have that particular book at home and if anyone has doubts, I can translate literally any passages or pages. Ref 7 was put by Athenean, you should ask him why it redirects to the article but I think that this can be corrected.
 * On the other hand, I think that the lead section is quite good for an article of this size, having in mind that the article itself has to be expanded further. Also, to my mind the introduction should include the most significant military and cultural achievements and to be an extremely short summary of the whole history from the beginning to the end. --Gligan (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed this part [] from the lead, apart from the peacock style it is written, he wasn't the 'one and only' non-Byzantine that became ceasar. As far as I know there was also Roger de Flor.Alexikoua (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger de Flor was not a ruler like the sentence stated so besides the dubious peacock style argument you had no justifiable reason to remove that.--Avidius (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cplakidas' suggestion for the lead is fine by me. My only concern at this point is length. Per WP:LEAD, we should keep it to 4 paragraphs. Regarding the history in the lead, we should focus on the most important events: Foundation by the Bulgars, help in the siege of Constantinople, apogee, and fall. Less important stuff like the defeat of the Magyars should be omitted for brevity. Athenean (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other things:
 * The term Danubian Bulgar Khanate should be mentioned at the start, it is too frequently used in the literature to try and hide it because some users don't like it.
 * Not applicable for the whole period of existence. Samuil or Peter I did not rule over a Danube Bulgar Khanate.
 * Very applicable, the name is widely used in the literature. Our readers are thus highly likely to encounter it.  Suppose someone read about the Danubian Bulgar Khanate in the literature, and types it into wikipedia to read more about it.  How does he know he has arrived at the right article?  He doesn't, unless the name Danubian Bulgar Khanate is mentioned in the lead.  Once again you are just trying to hide the empire's Turkic origins.  Athenean (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Used in literature but not applicable for the state as a whole because it is used only for a particular period of existence. Furthermore obviously that term is employed to differentiate it from the Volga Bulgar Khanate which is awkward to be explained in the lead but would fit pretty well at the place it is now. --Gligan (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the two sources you brought refer to it as Danubian Bulgar Khanate period, not "for a particular period of its existence". By the same argument, it was only known as the First Bulgarian Empire for a particular period of its existence.  It is sourced to top-quality sources.  So if we have First Bulgarian State in bold in the lead we should also have Danubian Bulgar Khanate.  The name is found hundreds of times in the literature.  It is simply too important to be left out of the lead to soothe the national sensibilities of some users. Athenean (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the term First Bulgarian Empire is well-established to refer for the country during its whole period of existence. You can say Tervel was a ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire but you cannot say that Samuil was a ruler of the Danube Bulgar Khanate. National sensibilities have nothing to do here. We also do not mention Empire of the Greeks in the Byzantine Empire lead because that is inapplicable for its initial period of existence. --Gligan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the same argument, you can't say that Asparukh was the ruler of a First Bulgarian Empire. In the beginning it was the Danubian Bulgar Khanate, which then turned into the First Bulgarian Empire. It wasn't the "First Bulgarian Empire" from the beginning.  Bottom line, if sources like The Cambridge Ancient History use the term, then it is more than sufficiently notable to be included in the lead. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But nonetheless First Bulgarian Empire is established as a term for the whole country and Danube Khanate is not. If you have History of the First Bulgarian Empire, it will begin with Asparukh; if you have History of the Danube Bulgar Khanate (which I doubt) it cannot continue until 1018. --Gligan (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't try to hide the Turkic origins of the Bulgars, this should be clearly mentioned.
 * That is as if saying Slavic Bulgarians in every lead section where the Bulgarians is mentioned which is ridiculous. No one is trying to hide anything - if people are interested, they will click on Bulgars and read and it is above all mentioned with 9 sources in the first section.
 * Not saying it should be mentioned everywhere but it should be mentioned at least once in the lead. Otherwise someone might assume that the Bulgars are indigenous to the Balkans, which they aren't.  There is nothing to be ashamed of, like you said. Athenean (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or the other side of the coin - you are trying to push Turkic without a reason. It is not natural to put the racial features of the peoples in a lead unless the article is ofr the specific people itself. Putting Turkic Maguars, Turkic Bulgars, Slavic Russians, Germanic Ostgoths is redundant and ridiculous. --Gligan (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "redundant" or "ridiculous" about saying the "Turkic tribe of the Bulgars". I am not trying to push it, I am trying to inform our readers.  Doing the opposite is hiding information from our readers, again only for the sake of protecting national sensibilites. Athenean (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In that logic put in every lead Slavic Poles, Germanic Franks, Latin Spaniards to see what you are going to achieve - it would be obviously more informative but still redundant. The same logic applies here. --Gligan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, everybody knows that the Spaniards are Latin and the Poles are Slavic. But you can't assume that everyone knows that the Bulgars, especially since the name sounds similar with "Bulgarians", whom everyone knows are Slavic. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is doubtful and 100% impossible to prove. It is not certain and everyone knows that Poles for example are Slavs (come on, there are Americans who believe California is another country) and above all you cannot determine what percentage of knowledge is need in order to put Slavic, Iranic or Turkic in the front. So, since it does not sound natural Slavic, Iranic or Turkic to be put in such cases, it has to be applied for all. --Gligan (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the lead currently reads like an exercise in trying to cram the words "Bulgaria" and "Bulgarian" as much as possible The First Bulgarian Empire (modern Bulgarian: Първo Българско царство, Parvo balgarsko tsarstvo), also known as the First Bulgarian State was a medieval Bulgarian state. 4 times in one sentence.  Not bad.  Athenean (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Medieval Bulgarian state in the way it is is need because that is a link to Bulgaria which will look odd if put in one of the previous phrases and according to everyone 681 is the birth of Bulgaria as a country. --Gligan (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What the heck is a "medieval Bulgarian state"? Bulgaria as a country was born in the 19th century. This is a medieval Turkic Khanate that assumed Slavic features over time.  There is a world of a difference.  It's like saying the Byzantine Empire was a medieval Greek state and the birth of Greece as a country.  Nonsense. Athenean (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bulgaria as a country was born in 681 not in 1878. In 1878 it was reborn. The First Empire is like France - the country was born before the people - in Bulgaria there were Bulgars and Slavs which formed the Bulgarian people in 9th century; in France there was North French people and South French people which formed a single French people somewhere until 12th century. So, our country evolved from a Bulgar-dominated Khanate to a state of the Bulgarian people which was resilient enough to be reborn after a 1,5 century Byzantine and almost 5 century Ottoman rule. --Gligan (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So if the "country was born before the people", how could it be a "medieval Bulgarian state"? And the word "country" carries a modern connotation.  No one refers to the medieval France and the Holy Roman Empire as a "country". Athenean (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But everyone refers that France as a country exists since 987, not since 1789 or when the modern terminology was established. International relations is also a modern term and a modern discipline but that does not mean that they did not exist until 20th century.
 * So it is a medieval Bulgarian state, because it evolved in that and all subsequent entities were reestablished as Bulgarian states on that ground. --Gligan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

-

Concerning the Pechenegs and the Magyars. The battle of Veroia happened after the First Empire was gone. The Pechenegs became a concern for Byzantium after Bulgaria was destroyed which is by itself a prove that Bulgaria effectively stopped them earlier. Why didn't the battle of Veroia happen before 1018?

The Magyar moved westwards to Pannonia after 896 where they stay until this day. That is indisputable as well, no? --Gligan (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If the Bulgarians were so effective at stopping them, why did the Byzantines have to do it all over again? Only after the Battle of Veroia were the Pechenegs defeated once and for all. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Bulgarians did not have interest of destroying the Pechenegs because they were their allies more often than not. There are even theories that they were Bulgarian federates (of course, it might have been because the Bulgarians were unable to do so, which also cannot be proven); but for certain they prevented any major Pecheneg invasions on Byzantine territory - they all happened after 1018. Furthermore, the end of Pecheneg influence is also linked to a new wave of migrating nomads from the east such as Ouzes and Cumans which did not appear while Bulgaria existed. --Gligan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)