Government and Power in the First Bulgarian Empire

Well, I support the following theory:
The term "kniaz" was not modernized-it was the original title оf the Bulgarian rulers, just the transcription and
pronouncing were changed to a degree.
For sure the very first source was in "Proto-Bulgarian", but It was translated in Church Slavonic (let's call it directly Old Bulgarian). I can't see any reasons between these two stages to be included a greek or whatever foreign sorce. The person was certainly familiar with "Proto-Bulgarian" language (very doubtful that a Greek, could possess such knowledge), calendar, titles etc. It was a domestic Bulgarian affair. Probably during the fall of the Ist Bulgarian empire the Greeks could have found the document they've used for a source, or it could be directly obtained by the Russians with other bulgarian church books during their christianisation.    
There was no original source (atleast I can't reffer to such ) for the usage of Han/Khan-so the title was "borrowed".
The official theory says that Boris I changed his title from a khan to kniaz after the Christianization (864).
For what purpose changing one pagan title with another(both equivalent to the greek(=christian) archont)?
I think such "pre-qualification" didn't occur at all (atleast I don't know it mentioned in an original document). There alreаdy had been christian Bulgarian rulers-like Kubrat, so that wasn't a precedent.    
When was the first official ruler with the title kniaz mentioned? Wasn't the Kievan Oleg (882 - 912)? If that's true why not the "slavic" rulers to obtain the Bulgarian title?(Just like happened with Tsar) The version that kniaz is comming from konig or konung was probably due to dominating theory among the Russian historians (the first professionals that Peter The Great found were Germans) of Scandinavian origin of the first Kievan princes (at that time very little was known about the Bulgarian history).
When did the Bulgarian rule over present day South Ukraine ended? Wasn't there left any influence from the Bulgarian state, strenghtened with the christianisation?
The hypothetical claims of Sviatoslav I for the Bulgarian throne could be also connected to the issue.

Originally posted by NikeBG The original source was most probably either on Proto-Bulgarian (with Greek letters) or on Greek, inscribed on stone columns.

Ok, since none of the Greek speakers seems to dare to try and translate the Ε ΚΑΝ[Α] ΠΟΛΑΔΥ[Ν]ΑΤΟΣ inscription, I'll just give Prof. Ovcharov's translation, based on Beshevliev's works: "[In the name] of the most powerful (or allmighty) khan". I guess "E" should mean "[in the name] of", "KAN[A]" is "khan" and "ΠΟΛΑΔΥ[Ν]ΑΤΟΣ" is "allmighty". On that picture you can see also three names, which are transliterated here as Negyun, Pumir and the Greek Petros (i.e. Petar). This inscription was found on the wall of a building near the Small Palace in Pliska. Anyway, it's considered that it's an inscription made by an ordinary man (i.e. not an official inscription) somewhere else, which was later moved at the location where it was found and we can also see that it doesn't use the official titulature of "kanasubigi". Yet, if it does mean "allmighty khan", then we can also presume that "kanasubigi" are two separate words - "kana" and "subigi", from which the latter is an adjective describing the khan.
What do you think about it?

Edited by NikeBG - 20-Dec-2006 at 05:52

Originally posted by Patrinos "KAN[A]" is "khan" Yes,but the A after KAN isn't needed.

Edited by Anton - 21-Dec-2006 at 17:46

I've seen “ΧΑΓΑΝΟΣ”=‘khaghan’ used to reffer to bulgarian and avar lords but never "KANAS" version,I don't know where you found it...

Originally posted by Patrinos I've seen �ΧΑΓΑΝΟΣ�=�khaghan� used to reffer to bulgarian and avar lords but never "KANAS" version,I don't know where you found it...

Edited by Anton - 21-Dec-2006 at 18:22

Originally posted by Anton Ε ΚΑΝ[Α] ΠΟΛΑΔΥ[Ν]ΑΤΟΣ    Some historians tend not to mention some symbols when they don't want to. The whole inscription is:   _I_ E I C A N   '' O Л A / У A I O C    We have four unknown symbols: _I_  IC "" and / Sorry,I don't have Greek alphabeth in my computer. IC authors read as K. It's OK, "/" they read as delata which also become OK, after looking at the whole word that is close to Greek "allmighty".   '' they read is Pi which also seems to be true. But why is this _I_ not considered? Could it be simple "T" written in a wrong way? If one accepts this then _I_EICAN could be read as�TA[R]KAN"   This is just a proposition, of course. But it is amazing how important is to find word "KHAN" for the official Bulgarian historical science. Sometimes it is really difficult to find black cat in the dark room.

Yes, except that "I C" is not "I C", but it's "K", at least according to Prof. Ovcharov. I don't have the book at hand right now, but I remember two grounds for this:
1. It's a well known tendence in early medieval Bulgaria to write "K" with distant I and C. This is not the only case...
2. In the inscription there are two more times, when an actual C has been written and it's clearly seen that it's a rounded C. While the "I C" (which is a "K") is angled as in the right part of "K" is.
About the "up-down T" - what would TE KAN[A] ... mean then?
And, btw, it seems that the A at then end of KAN is necessary, since it's also in the official title of "KANASUBIGI", i.e. "kana subigi" where "subigi" is a not certain Bulgar adjective. However, it's not "kanas ubigi" or any other form of "kanas" (as in knez or whatever), as we see from that incription that it's just "kan[a]" and not "kanas". Oh, and "knez u bogu" is on Slavic, while "kanasubigi" is supposed to be Bulgar...

Hi everyone,

I noticed someone mentioned Krum�s laws.. I would like to point out that some recent historians have a renewed view on this issue. The standpoint is that Krum didn�t create the laws of the Bulgarian state, but was rather a strict follower of the laws established by his forefathers. He may have enhanced the laws or modified some, but he didn�t create them. It seems that these laws had existed among the Bulgars long before Krum�s reign. If they didn�t, then the political and military organization of the Bulgars wouldn�t have been as strong as it was. Meaning that, immediately after the fall of Old Great Bulgaria, the Bulgars established two Bulgarian states (one at the Volga and one at the Danube) that appeared to be superior to most of their neighbors in internal, political and military organization. A mindset to create such organized states, almost instantly, doesn�t just appear out of nowhere. It is developed and practiced for centuries in advance before a strong product is produced. So, the Bulgars must have had a very strict law system in effect to have been able to sustain their organization of state.. especially considering the fact that both had strong rivals to compete with, notably the East Roman Empire and Danubian Bulgaria.
Where as the East Roman writers were creating a compilation of texts that were supposed to demonstrate that even though Krum was a �savage and a barbarian, he was nevertheless a great statesman�. The fact that he devastated the East Roman army and created a silver lined drinking cup from the emperor�s skull, while expanding the Bulgar territories south by taking Trace, was known and discussed for another 150 years by the citizens of the East Roman Empire.

Regarding the title of �Khan�, as far as I know there is no, primary document or record that directly assigns the title of Khan to the Bulgar rulers. It seems that the title of Khan is used by more recent historians for comfort. i.e. the title Khan was picked solely for explanatory purposes of a particular time period. In a similar way more recent historians used/use the term Byzantium to refer to the East Roman Empire, to designate the time period after the split from the west. East Romans, however, were not known as Byzantines, but rather as Romans or Romeioi. So, Khan was probably picked as to depict the Bulgar rulers during the time period shortly after they had overthrown the foreign rule of Turkic tribes in Scythia.
Regarding the title Tsar, there are a couple of theories that are very similar. One states that it was directly derived from the title of Caesar while the other claims that Tsar was derived from the German Kaiser, which itself was derived from Caesar. So I don�t understand why some of you state that Tsar is a Slavic title when in fact it�s a Bulgar term derived from the Romans or Germans. The term, as you have mentioned, later traveled to Slavic nations.

Regarding the form of rule within the First Bulgarian Empire, it appears to have been an autocracy. While, during the Second Bulgarian Empire, there is a shift toward a feudal system similar to that used in Western Europe. This was most likely influenced by the Latin crusaders. And it appears that this shift to feudalism weakened the Second Bulgarian Empire as it was divided amongst three of the relatives/descendants of the Tsar.
    
    

Edited by Kavkan - 23-Dec-2006 at 20:32

Hm...it smells like a confrontation of a Thracian with a Slav in Bulgaria!

Originally posted by NikeBG Well, honestly, I don't remember hearing such theories so far. I remember about theories that Slavs actually don't exist and are a manipulation, created by Russia, but that the Bulgars were Slavs - none so far. Do you know any author or site, which claims such a thing? Eventually a link?