Government and Power in the First Bulgarian Empire

If Tsar and Emperor are synonyms,then Tsardom and Empire are a same thing.

When Ferdinand became Tsar in 1908,Bulgaria became tsardom,not kingdom.On the other hand Bulgaria was not a big country and it is ridiculous to call it Empire.

When did they start using Tzar instead of Khan?

From what i know bulgars didnt use the name "Tsar" after Tervel recieved the title Caesar.The first time it was mentioned was when Simeon pronounced himself a TSAR(Emperor).

Very interesting is the fact that during the reign of Omurtag the title Khan is changed.We all know Omurtag,Malamir,Presian and Boris I to be khans,but their real title was Kanas Subigi.Some hisotrians think that and this title means "Emperor" in bulgar's view.

Haha, you're both right and wrong, Constantine! I like to joke about it - that Tervel (my favourite ruler - a really interesting guy) was our first tsar (while "tsar" has never been used by pagan rulers, although there are debates whether Tervel was a Christian or not). And Tervel indeed received the title "kessar" by Justinian II Rinotmet, which AFAIK is the Greek equivalent of the Roman Caesar, which is the root of the Slavic form "tsar". So, in one form, Tervel was indeed a "tsar". But he remained more of a "khan" rather than a "tsar", since he was:
A) Ruler of a Bulgar state (and the attack in 708 clearly showed that all this "kessar" affair was only to make him leave the area of Constantinople and it wasn't for real).
B) He wouldn't use exactly "tsar" since the Slavic element in the ruling elite at that time was still either extremely weak or virtually inexistant.

The first Bulgarian ruler to be called exactly "tsar" is:
A) Kniaz Boris-Mikhail the Convertor, also known in the Church history as St. Tsar Boris (Sveti Tsar Boris).
B) Tsar Simeon - he did claim imperial titles, but IIRC he used the Greek "basileos" in his claims, f.e. "basileos of Bulgarians and Romans".
C) The first Bulgarian ruler, who most definitely received the title "tsar" (and exactly the Slavic "tsar", not the Greek "basileos") was Tsar Petar I.


One correction, Krum: The only ruler's title of the Bulgars, which we know of, is "kanasubigi" (i.e. it's not certain whether it's one word or "kanas ubigi" or "kana subigi" etc.) Otherwise, the Byzantines usually used the titles, which they give to most of the foreign rulers - mostly "archon" or sometimes the Greek word for "sir" ("kirios"? Sorry, it got out of my mind!). Otherwise, the Bulgarian stone-column inscriptions say for these three last "khans": "kanasubigi Omurtag", "kanasubigi Malamir", "kanasubigi Persian", which is definitely a Bulgar title. Some translate it as "great khan", others - "chief commander of the army", third even find a correlation between "kanas" and the Slavic "kniaz" (which makes it not so surprisable that Boris I so quickly moved exactly to "kniaz" after the Conversion). But "kanasubigi" most probably doesn't mean exactly "emperor" as in the Roman/Byzantine sense of the word...

When was the title khan (han) first applyed to a Bulgar ruler? And why, if there's no orignal historic confirmation? Just, because the dominating theory for the Bulgars origin then was the turkic one and from analogy with other turkic tribes?

Are you sure about Kubrat, Ventzy? For all I know, the Romeans used only their own "titles" for him - "archon" and "patricius".

About the Volga-Bulgar titles, here's a post of mine from some time ago. I'm not sure about its accuracy though. Anyway, the Wiki there says that the titles were at first "iltдbдr (sometimes elteber). After the Islamization his title became sheikh."

Otherwise, Desperado - yes, AFAIK, the main reason why it's accepted that our rulers were "khans" is exactly the dominating Turkic theory. Pretty much the same with the so-called "Tangra", being the Bulgar's God. Some historians were very quick to make conclusions before the communist times, during that and after, up to today. But, sadly, mainly those quick-historians receive the word the most and their views are also established the most both at home and abroad...


Edited by NikeBG - 13-Nov-2006 at 11:51

Originally posted by NikeBG Are you sure about Kubrat, Ventzy? For all I know, the Romeans used only their own "titles" for him - "archon" and "patricius". About the Volga-Bulgar titles, [url=http://forum.sunflowers.de/showpost.php?p=132723&postcount=201]here's[/rul] a post of mine from some time ago. I'm not sure about its accuracy though. Anyway, the Wiki there says that the titles were at first "ilt�b�r (sometimes elteber). After the Islamization his title became sheikh."

here's is information about elteber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elteber

Why It's called "Именник на Българските канове", when it's known that there's not included even a single ruler with the title Khan/Han, and the most frequently mentioned title is "Kniaz/Kanas"?
      
    

Edited by Desperado - 14-Nov-2006 at 05:27

Well, for me the "княз"(infact "КЪН'АЗ") title sounds more like "canas", than "konung"- a probable direct deriative from "canas ubigi". Was the title "княз" common among the western Slavs, who where near the Germans from which "konung" was probably borrowed? I understand the unreliability of that source, but I was not the first that mentioned it. Why the rulers titles were "modernized", but not the years of the beginning of their rule? The exact periods are mentioned and when the time count ended was also known(not more than a centure before the Baptism), why the Christian calendar was not used aswell but a pagan system of dating? All modern documents of that time usually reffered to the following dating (Въ лето господне ..... отъ сътворението на света и лето.... отъ Рождество Христово..) Or just the autors were lazy? With the lack of other sources wsn't just better to accept the mentioned "kniaz", and to connect it directly with the other known title-"kanas ubugi" rather than to borrow a completely foreign one?. The answer of my rhetorical question was that in the particular case the "evidence" was subdued to theory, not the opposite. The question about Tangra is also unclear.

Originally posted by NikeBG I don't really understand what you're asking. Why did the Russians change the old title to their modern kniaz, but they didn't change the Bulgar years and months (like Shegor Tvirem etc.)? Well, to translate the Bulgar calendar, you first need to know it and understand it. And I seriously doubt that the Russians, who transcribed the Nominalia, actually understood what does "Shegor Alem" f.e. mean! That's why they didn't waste their time on trying to check the Internet for that ( ;) ) - they simply left it as it is. But they probably did guess that "kanasubigi" sounds awfully close to their own "kniaz" and they naturally made the connection. Whether it was a right connection or not - I can't say...P.S. Btw, "konung" is a Nordic title. The German is "koenig" (with o umlaut)...

I think you understood very well what I'm asking . The Russians didn't translate it from "Proto-Bulgarian" language, the primary source was probably in Old Bulgarian or Greek. I can't see the reason of particular translation of some of the terms but not of all.
    By "German" i meant Germanic, which in fact doesn't change anything.