Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 10

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  medieval Bulgaria
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Between Rebellion and Statesmanship: Attempting a Biography of Ivanko, 1196/1200 (?)

100%
Dall’Aglio F.
Studia Ceranea
|
2021
|
vol. 11
91-106
EN
The paper analyses the actions of Ivanko, a Bulgarian nobleman, possibly a member of the ruling family of the Asenides, who in 1196 killed the ruling tsar, Asen, and escaped to Constantinople once his plan to take control of the country failed. Owing to the benevolence of Alexios III Angelos, he joined the Byzantine military and very quickly rose through its ranks until he became the military commander of the region of Philippopolis. In 1198 or 1999 he defected and created an independent dominion on the slopes of the Stara Planina massif, precariously balanced between Bulgaria and the empire, exploiting to his own advantage the constant state of warfare between the two polities. His adventure was short-lived: in 1200 he was captured through deception by the Byzantines, taken prisoner, and presumably executed. While his political career was very short, his importance for the history of medieval Bulgaria is not to be underestimated. It is a testimony of the fluidity of the political situation at the Bulgaro-Byzantine border, whose instability often allowed ambitious and cunning local commanders to carve up autonomous dominions, and of the difficulties experienced by the central power in keeping control of the peripheral areas of the state. It is also proof of the constantly shifting ethnic and cultural allegiances of the citizens of those polities, entangled between different and often conflicting identities, usually regarded as irreconcilable but that were actually the object of a continuous negotiation and adjusting. Ivanko is an interesting case study in regard to all of those factors, especially when considered within the larger phenomenon of provincial separatism in the imperial (and Bulgarian) lands between the end of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Gabriel Radomir (1014–1015) i Jan Władysław (1015–1018), władcy państwa bułgarskiego w źródłach bizantyńskich

81%
Leszka M. J.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2018
|
vol. 25
43-51
EN
The article concerns the image of the Bulgarian tsars: Gavril Radomir and John Vladislav, who resisted the emperor Basil II for over three years after the death of tsar Samuel. According to the author, they did enjoy much attention of the Byzantine historians. On the one hand, it was due to the briefness of the reigns of the aforementioned tsars’, on the other, because of the conviction that the outcome of the conflict between the Empire and Bulgaria of Cometopulis had been decided earlier - during the bloody war with Samuel, who certainly was considered a character of much higher stature than his successors.
PL
Artykuł poświęcony jest wizerunkowi carów bułgarskich: Gabriela Radomira i Jana Władysława, którzy przez ponad trzy lata po śmierci cara Samuela stawiali opór cesarzowi Bazylemu II. Według autora nie wzbudzili on specjalnego zainteresowania bizantyńskich historiografów. Z jednej strony wynikało to z krótkotrwałości ich rządów, z drugiej zaś, być może, z przekonania, że losy zmagań cesarstwa z Bułgarią Komitopulów rozstrzygnęły się już wcześniej – w krwawych bojach z Samuelem, który dla Bizantyńczyków był z pewnością postacią zdecydowanie większego formatu niż jego następcy.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Symeon I Wielki, władca Bułgarii w przekazie Leona Diakona (Historia, VII, 7)

81%
Leszka M.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2019
|
vol. 26
33-41
EN
Simeon in the account of Leo the Deacon (Historia, VII, 7) is an unambiguously negative figure. A bold barbarian who dared not only to raid Byzantine territories, but also to demand that the Romans proclaim him a ruler. Even his victory at the Battle of Anchialos (917) was not the result of his military prowess, but a tear in the Byzantine camp. It should be clearly emphasized that he was not the hero of the aforementioned passage of Leo the Deacon's work, but Leo Phokas. The Bulgarian ruler was only a convenient tool in the hands of the Byzantine author for the purpose of showing a rather trivial truth that disagreement in one’s own camp and the desire for power lead to misfortunes, both for the individuals and for the nation. 
PL
Symeon w przekazie Leona Diakona (Historia, VII, 7) to postać jednoznacznie negatywna. Butny barbarzyńca, który ośmielił się nie tylko najeżdżać na bizantyńskie terytorium, ale i żądać, by Romajowie proklamowali go swoim władcą. Nawet zwycięstwo w bitwie pod Anchialos (917) nie było owocem jego wojskowego kunsztu, a skutkiem rozdarcia w obozie bizantyńskim. Bułgarski władca był w rękach bizantyńskiego autora jedynie wygodnym narzędziem do realizacji celu ukazania dość banalnej prawdy, że niezgoda we własnym obozie i żądza władzy prowadzą do nieszczęść tak w wymiarze osobistym, jak i całego państwa. 
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Spisek Jana przeciw carowi Piotrowi (928) - raz jeszcze

81%
Leszka M. J.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2016
|
vol. 23
5-14
EN
The article refers to a repeatedly discussed subject of the rebellion staged by John, the son of Simeon I of Bulgaria, against Peter his (?)step-brother. The author of the study has reanalysed sources on the plot for motives of  the conspiracy, its scope,  attitude of the Byzantine Empire towards the rebellion and John’s fate after the year 928. The conspiracy has been concluded to have primarily been an aspect of the struggle for power amongst the successors of Simeon. which is not supposed to have been instigated by Byzantium in any way.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Innocent III and South-eastern Europe: Orthodox, Heterodox, or Heretics?

72%
Dall’Aglio F.
Studia Ceranea
|
2019
|
vol. 9
11-25
EN
In the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216) the necessity of creating a large coalition for a better organization of the Fourth Crusade convinced the pope to establish diplomatic relations with Bulgaria and Serbia, and to support Hungarian expansion in Bosnia. His aim was to surround Constantinople with a ring of states loyal to the Roman Church, thus forcing the empire to participate in the crusade. In order to achieve this result, Innocent was more than willing to put aside his concerns for strict religious orthodoxy and allow the existence, to a certain extent, of non-conforming practices and beliefs in the lands of South-eastern Europe. While this plan was successful at first, and both Bulgaria and Serbia recognized pontifical authority in exchange for political legitimization, the establishment of the so-called Latin empire of Constantinople in 1204 changed the picture. Its relations with Bulgaria were extremely conflicted, and the threat posed by Bulgaria to the very existence of the empire forced again Innocent III to a politics of compromise. The survival of the Latin empire was of the greatest importance, since Innocent hoped to use it as a launching point for future crusades: yet, he tried until possible to maintain a conciliatory politics towards Bulgaria as well.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Asparuh and His People on the Lower Danube through the Eyes of Theophanes, or a Story that Was Not Meant to Happen

72%
Marinow K.
Studia Ceranea
|
2018
|
vol. 8
167-191
EN
The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nicephorus, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Osadnicy, twierdze, temy. Bizantyńskie działania w celu wzmocnienia granicy z wczesnośredniowieczną Bułgarią, VII–X w.

61%
Marinow K.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2019
|
vol. 26
5-30
EN
The article raises issues related to the Byzantine reconquista of the Thracian and Macedonian lands after the period of barbarian invasions on the Balkan Peninsula in the 5th–7th c. When implementing the plan to recover these areas, the authorities in Constantinople had to take into account the real threat from the Bulgarian Khanate, established north of the Haimos Mountains. Bulgarians threatened not only the success of the Byzantine venture, but they went much further south, reaching in their raids the surroundings of the imperial capital (in the southeast) or the geographical and historical lands of Macedonia (in the southwest). To remedy this, and to make their presence more real in these areas, the emperors moved there the population from Asia Minor to fulfill the existing settlement voids, embedding them in already existing or newly built fortresses and cities (as garrison units), or on arable lands (rural settlement). Another step was the creation of specific administrative units in the indicated areas, through which it was easier to administer them and effectively organize resistance against invaders from the north. Local settlers also constituted the basic military force obliged to protect these border territories. On the other hand, Thracian strongholds played the role of Byzantine outposts and bases for imperial expeditions organized against Bulgaria itself.
PL
Artykuł podnosi zagadnienia związane z bizantyńską rekonkwistą ziem trackich i macedońskich po okresie najazdów barbarzyńskich na Półwysep Bałkański w V–VII w. n.e. Realizując plan odzyskiwania tych terenów władze w Konstantynopolu musiały brać pod uwagę realne zagrożenie ze strony chanatu bułgarskiego, funkcjonującego na północ od gór Hemos. Bułgarzy bowiem zagrażali nie tylko powodzeniu bizantyńskiego przedsięwzięcia, lecz wyprawiali się znacznie dalej na południe, sięgając w swych rajdach okolic cesarskiej stolicy (na południowym wschodzie) czy ziem geograficzno-historycznej Macedonii (na południowym zachodzie). By temu zaradzić, a i urealnić swoją obecność na wspomnianych obszarach, cesarze sprowadzali ludność małoazjatycką, którą uzupełniano istniejące tam pustki osadnicze, osadzając ją w już istniejących lub nowo wzniesionych twierdzach i miastach (jako oddziały garnizonowe), bądź na terenach uprawnych (osadnictwo wiejskie). Innym krokiem było utworzenie na wskazanych terenach konkretnych jednostek administracyjnych, za pośrednictwem których łatwiej było nimi zarządzać i skutecznie organizować opór przeciwko najeźdźcom z północy. Miejscowi osadnicy stanowili również podstawową siłę militarną zobowiązaną do ochrony tych pogranicznych terytoriów. Z drugiej strony twierdze trackie pełniły rolę bizantyńskich forpoczt i baz wypadowych dla wypraw cesarskich organizowanych przeciwko samej Bułgarii.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Pan Kubrat i jego pięciu synów. Teofanesa wizja przybycia Bułgarów na Półwysep Bałkański

58%
Marinow K.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2016
|
vol. 23
15-34
EN
The Bulgarians’ settlement in the Lower Danube area constituted one of the most significant events in the history of the Balkan Peninsula in the Middle Ages. The Danube Bulgaria’s rise and its territorial expansion changed the political situation in this area. The Bulgarians became Byzantium’s chief opponents in the struggle for establishing ascendancy over the Balkan Peninsula. The analysis of Theophanes’ Chronography, which remains, in addition to the account by Patriarch Nikephoros, the main source of information about these events supports the conclusion that this Byzantine author took a very negative view of the effects of the arrival of these nomads in the former Byzantine territories. Although this account has been analysed in detail by a number of scholars, these authors have paid no attention to the key role of the tale of Khan Kubrat and the disobedience of his five sons who failed to remain faithful to his last wish. The significance of the personal experiences of Theophanes, who witnessed the Bulgarian expansion during the era of Khan Krum, is also omitted from today’s discussion of these issues. These experiences contributed to the way in which he viewed the migration of the ancestors of the distinguished Bulgarian ruler. The chronicler may thus be considered to have offered a very clear view of what the readers should think of the Bulgarians’ arrival in the Balkan territories.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Góry Hemos a bizantyńskie wpływy kulturowe i gospodarcze na wczesnośredniowieczną Bułgarię

51%
Marinow K.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2018
|
vol. 25
7-42
EN
The text discusses the importance of the Hemos mountain range (nowadays including Pre-Balkan, Stara Planina and Sredna Gora massifs) which separated the core territory of the early medieval Bulgaria in the North from the Byzantine lands in the South (almost through the entire so-called pagan or barbarian period of the Bulgarian state, i.e. from the end of 7th to the middle of 9th centuries), and divided the state in two geographically separated territories during the rest part of the existence of the so-called First Bulgarian Empire (from the second half of the 9th to the end of 10th and beginning of 11th centuries). The source investigation shows that especially during the first half of the period in consideration – the mentioned pagan (barbarian) period – the mountains really acted, to a certain degree, as a barrier for the Byzantine influences on the Bulgarians. That was because of the ideological (political) and religious differences between both the states.
PL
Tekst omawia znaczenie górskiego łańcucha Hemosu (współcześnie odpowiadającego masywom Przedbałkanu, Starej Płaniny i Srednej Gory), który rozdzielał jądro terytorialne wczesnośredniowiecznej Bułgarii znajdujące się na północy od ziem bizantyńskich leżących na południu (prawie przez cały tzw. pogański okres państwa bułgarskiego, a zatem pomiędzy końcem VII. a połową IX. w.), i dzielił państwo na dwa geograficznie odrębne obszary przez pozostałą część istnienia tzw. Pierwszego Państwa Bułgarskiego (od drugiej połowy IX. do końca X. i początków XI. w.). Analiza źródłowa wskazuje, że szczególnie w pierwszej części omawianego okresu chronologicznego – w tzw. okresie pogańskim lub barbarzyńskim – góry rzeczywiście, do pewnego stopnia, odgrywały rolę bariery dla wpływów bizantyńskich na Bułgarów. Wynikało to z różnic ideologicznych (politycznych) i konfesyjnych pomiędzy oboma państwami.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Enemy of All Virtues: Once Again on the Image of Simeon the Great in the Oration “On the Treaty with the Bulgarians”

51%
Marinow K.
Vox Patrum
|
2022
|
vol. 84
105-122
PL
Artykuł koncentruje się na postaci cara bułgarskiego Symeona I Wielkiego (893-927), który w drugiej połowie swojego panowania wszedł w długotrwały konflikt militarny i ideologiczny z cesarstwem bizantyńskim. Pragnął bowiem nie tylko poszerzyć swoje włości kosztem południowego sąsiada, lecz i zrównać się z nim w tytulaturze, niewykluczone zaś, jakkolwiek w tej materii zdania uczonych są rozbieżne, iż jego aspiracje sięgały jeszcze dalej, a mianowicie samego Konstantynopola. Tak czy owak, Bułgaria czasów jego panowania stanowiła poważne zagrożenie dla Bizancjum i jego głównego antagonistę. Śmierć cara w 927 i zawarcie pokoju z cesarstwem przez jego syna, Piotra I (927-969), ostatecznie położyła kres konfliktowi pomiędzy oboma krajami. Uroczystości związane z zawarciem porozumienia stały się okazją do podsumowań. W napisanej z tej okazji mowie retorycznej działania i aspiracje Symeona zostały poddane surowej krytyce – poprzez porównania do postaci z literatury antycznej i tekstów biblijnych bizantyński mówca zdyskredytował postawę tego władcy. Porównanie do tych z nich, którzy wzbudzali u słuchaczy i czytelników negatywne konotacje pozbawiło Symeona wszelkich cnót przynależnych chrześcijańskiemu władcy, a nade wszystko tych kardynalnych, którymi przede wszystkim powinien się legitymizować.
EN
This article focuses on the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon I the Great (893-927), who in the second half of his reign entered into a protracted military and ideological conflict with the Byzantine Empire. He wished not only to extend his dominions at the expense of his southern neighbour, but also to equal him in titular power, and it is possible - although scholars differ on this point - that his aspirations reached even further, namely Constantinople itself. Either way, Bulgaria under his reign posed a serious threat to Byzantium and its main antagonist. The death of the Tsar in 927 and the conclusion of peace with the Empire by his son, Peter I (927-969), finally put an end to the conflict between both the states. The celebrations marking the conclusion of the agreement provided an opportunity to take stock. In a rhetorical speech written for the occasion, Simeon's actions and aspirations were severely criticised – through comparisons to figures from ancient literature and biblical texts, the Byzantine speaker discredited the attitude of this ruler. Comparisons to those of them who aroused negative connotations in listeners and readers deprived Simeon of all the virtues belonging to a Christian ruler and, above all, of the cardinal ones by which he should, above all, legitimise himself.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.