Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The Battle of the Bosnian Highlands Posted: 05-May-2006 at 13:13 |
I recently came across this entry in wikipedia about a great battle between the Bulgarian Empire and the Croatian Kingdom in 927. It says that the Croatian army had 160,000 soldiers, which is an enormous number, that seems to me greatly exaggerated. Does anyone know more about this battle, including accurate figures?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bosnian_Highlands
Edited by Decebal
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Bulgarian Soldja
Knight
Joined: 14-Apr-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-May-2006 at 19:51 |
The figures about the Croatian army at the time are abit over exaggerated yeah, even croat historians say so.
We were greatly outnumbered though, but .....
I can tell you that much ... it simply shattered Tsar Simeon I's dreams of conquerin constantinople. Tomislav scared our army.
Edited by Bulgarian Soldja
|
|
Maljkovic
Earl
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-May-2006 at 10:47 |
Constantine Porfirogenet recorded that Croatia under Tomislav had 100.000 infantry and 60.000 cavalry. I think it's because that was still a tribal army, where every able bodied man was required to fight. But the battle with the Bulgarians was probably an ambush in some rivine, a common practice in the medevil Balkans.
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-May-2006 at 21:05 |
It seems to me that this may actually have been a decisive battle in world history: had the Bulgarians not lost, they would have turned to Byzantium next. Who knows what the consequences may have been? Although in fairness, Byzantium was notoriously difficult to conquer.
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-May-2006 at 02:03 |
From what I understand, Symeon undertook this campaign simply because
year after year of waiting outside the walls of Constantinople was
unprofitable and demoralizing for his army. Emperor Romanus I Lecapenus
was so unconcerned by the Bulgar army sitting outside the walls, that
he was still giving orders for the Byzantine army in Asia to continue
conquering more land from the petty Arab emirates on the border. I
think that after many years of impotently sitting outside
Constantinople, Symeon realised he needed to keep his army active and
engaged. Constantinople was not to be taken without a fleet, something
Symeon simply could not muster in sufficient quality or quantity.
Having subjugated nearly the whole of the Balkan, the only place really
left for him to turn to was his western frontier. From what I
understand the Croats were indeed a highly militaristic people at this
stage and thanks to that managed to defeat Symeon's attack. I don't see
how conquering Croatia would have helped Symeon take Constantinople, if
anything it would probably drain his military manpower as he had to
garrison occupied territory against Croat rebellions and the Catholic
powers further west.
|
|
Maljkovic
Earl
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-May-2006 at 06:47 |
Actually, what happened was that Byzantines convinced Tomislav to aid them in the struggle with the Bulgarians. He did this by helping Serbian zupan (no translation for the word) Zacharias in his rebelion against Simeon. Since this rebelion was a threat to the Morava-Vardar trade route, the life line of the Balkans, Simeon had to fight Zacharias. And he did. After the fall of Serbia, Zacharias and many of his people sought refuge in Croatia. Simeon asked that Tomislav hand over Zacharias, Tomislav refused and they went to war.
|
|
the Bulgarian
Colonel
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-May-2006 at 07:44 |
The war with Croatia was not decisive for Byzantium's fait, but Symeon's death. Constantine X is right to point out that a land army, no matter how strong, is useless without a fleet at the walls of Constantinople. Symeon realized this and sent a mission to the Arabs, offering them a summ they couldn't resist in the exchange of the use of their fleet. Luckily for the Greeks the missionaries were captured and Symeon died before sending someone else. Had he lived five more years or his first mission to the Arabs been successful I'm pretty confident he would have taken Constantinople.
|
|
Bulgarian Soldja
Knight
Joined: 14-Apr-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-May-2006 at 09:44 |
I agree with your first suggestion maljkovic .... and i agree with u aswell bulgarian
|
|
NikeBG
Colonel
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-May-2006 at 13:51 |
Hah, I just read another topic about this campaign in one Bulgarian history forum. What a coincidence! Anyway, Simeon's campaign to Croatia was basically to cover his rear. And even after this "great defeat" we see nothing really changed, we lost no land and we aimed at Byzantium again. Btw, Constantine XI, I believe Simeon was smart enough to know what he's doing. And he also knew the defences of Constantinople well enough - don't forget that he was raised there (and was even called demi-Greek by the Byzantines themselves). But there are more ways to do a pressure than to simply siege or conquer a city. F.e. I believe that during the war, Simeon didn't allow Byzantine traders, diplomats etc. to cross his borders. And at that time he was at three seas, covering nearly all of the Balkans and especially the main trade routes (including the Balkan part of the Silk route). That's only one possible side...
|
|
violentjack
Earl
Joined: 10-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-May-2006 at 13:38 |
Presumed battle was near Vrhbosna area,or just bit bellow near town of Prozor.
This was battle between old Samuel 893-927 Bulgarian monarch that brought
christianity and increased Bulgarian tertory and abolished tribal
systems Bulgars had and proclaimed himself Tzar,before title was Khan
like Khubrat or Khrum.
By that time Croatia and Bulgaria were biggest state in the Balkans,and
on plains of Bosnia,presumed Croatia won against udnefeated Samuel
893-927,around year 926 Ad.
Tomislav will die around 930 and he is most famous for bringing
Christianity into Croatia,though most of Croatia was christian
then,with some paghan influence.
So,Croat victory
Edited by violentjack
|
Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite
|
|
Digenis
Colonel
suspended
Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-May-2006 at 15:39 |
Originally posted by Maljkovic
Constantine Porfirogenet recorded that Croatia under Tomislav had 100.000 infantry and 60.000 cavalry. I think it's because that was still a tribal army, where every able bodied man was required to fight.
|
No.Obviously a medieval chronicler's exaggeration.
|
|
violentjack
Earl
Joined: 10-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-May-2006 at 16:17 |
All those started from Jordanes 1 century Ad,as sometimes historians
got bit carried away in writing..100 000 soldiers i seriously doubt at
that time,more then millenium ago,though Croatia was superpower along
with Bulgaria,but that many soldiers and what ruler would be foolish
enough to risk it all in one battle ?.Remember Basil around 1018
what he did to those Bulgarians,he wasnt Basil Bulgar slayer for
nothing.So, yes sometimes history is just a bit exaggeration and
sometimes truth.If i missed a few years my mistake.
Thanks
|
Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite
|
|
NikeBG
Colonel
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-May-2006 at 06:19 |
violentjack, to correct some things: "This was a battle between old Simeon 893-927 - Bulgarian monarch, whose father brought
christianity, and increased Bulgarian teritory and abolished tribal
systems the Bulgars had (which had been dealt with a long time ago, at least since the time of Khan Omurtag) and proclaimed himself Tzar, before the title was Khan
like Kubrat or Krum.
By that time Croatia and Bulgaria were biggest states in the Balkans, and
on plains of Bosnia, presumed Croatia won against udnefeated Simeon 893-927, around year 926 AD." And while looking at this map, I don't really see Croatia as "superpower" on the peninsula... Btw, I think that an interesting discussion might appear here! What do you, people, think - why does it appear that Simeon lost in Croatia and despite of this everything continued, as if nothing happened? Reminds me of a case with his father, Kniaz Boris I Mikhail, who was fighting the Romeans (Byzantines) and lost by them, fighting the Serbs and lost by them too, his country was hit by famine and 40 days of earthquakes, and still not only that he didn't lose anything, but he actually received new lands! Usually, when a country is losing the war, and especially if it's in such a hard situation, it's supposed to lose and not to gain territory...
|
|
the Bulgarian
Colonel
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-May-2006 at 06:29 |
Croatia was no superpower. King Tomislav had won a deffensive war, thus saving his country from becoming another Bulgarian province, and nothing more. He had no means of taking the initiative. In the end Symeon was the one calling the shots in Southeastern Europe.
|
|
Digenis
Colonel
suspended
Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-May-2006 at 08:43 |
Originally posted by NikeBG
And while looking at this map, I don't really see Croatia as "superpower" on the peninsula...
|
Well this map is an exaggeration -Bulgaria's control in the darker marked area was impermanent,and didnt recognised by a treaty. Its wrong for maps to present invasions as status quo. Anyway,the fact is that during Symeon's reign Bulgaria's military power was really great enough to threaten Byzantine Empire. On the other hand,calling Croatia a "superpower" makes words t oloose their true meaning.Croatia was never a superpower.
|
|
the Bulgarian
Colonel
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-May-2006 at 08:54 |
Yes, Digenis, you're right about the map. These territories were only temporarily occupied (Serbia was annexed for a while though). The map has one more inaccuracy - Hungary was not around by that time. The Magyar state emerged in 1000 AD. Bulgaria bordered the Frankish Empire at the time.
|
|
NikeBG
Colonel
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-May-2006 at 10:06 |
Well, if you don't like that map, here's another one:
Edited by NikeBG
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-May-2006 at 10:24 |
Originally posted by the Bulgarian
Yes, Digenis, you're right about the map. These territories were only temporarily occupied (Serbia was annexed for a while though). The map has one more inaccuracy - Hungary was not around by that time. The Magyar state emerged in 1000 AD. Bulgaria bordered the Frankish Empire at the time. |
Just a remark. More precisely the Hungarian Kingdom emerged in 1000. The Magyar tribes invaded and captured parts of Hungary and Transylvania in 895-6. This map shows AD 893.
|
|
violentjack
Earl
Joined: 10-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-May-2006 at 00:27 |
At that time it was,as during that time Europe didnt have 1001 country or state
Croatia under Tomislav stretched throughout much of Bosnia and trully was superpower of the day
Why else would Samuel in its dying days come and fight against Croats?
For Twix?
|
Bosnjaci,probudite se ili nestanite
|
|
NikeBG
Colonel
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-May-2006 at 01:35 |
Uhm, uhm! Once again - it's not Samuil, it's Simeon! This is Simeon the Great (893-927), this is Samuil (997-1014) - more than half a century distance. And Simeon went against Croatia due to several reasons, but mainly to cover his rear, so that he could then concentrate on Byzantium. Definitely not because "Croatia was a superpower". Edit: Here's from Wiki in brief: "The reason might have been that Tomislav received and protected the Serbs who were expelled by Symeon from Rascia.
In all probability, however, the main reason was that Symeon, if
crowned by Papal Legate, feared an attack from Byzantine Emperor
supported by Tomislav. Emperor Romanus Lecapenus won the friendship of
Tomislav some years previously, handing over the Byzantine Dalmatia
to Tomislav and recognizing him as King of Croatia (Pope John X
recognized Tomislav as King of Croatia in 925). During the summer of
926, Tomislav sent his troops to Italy to expel Saracens, from the city of Sipontus, which belonged to the Byzantine province of Langobardia. This event could have been a sufficient proof to Symeon that the Croats
took the side of the Byzantine Emperor and that they would support him
actively in the future. Therefore, when in the next spring Symeon sent
a great army against the Croats, Bulgarians were met by Tomislav`s army
in the mountainous region of Eastern Bosnia on May 27, 927."
Edited by NikeBG
|
|