Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Battle of the Bosnian Highlands

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
Bulgarian Soldja View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Apr-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54
  Quote Bulgarian Soldja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Maljkovic View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
  Quote Maljkovic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. 

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Maljkovic View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
  Quote Maljkovic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
the Bulgarian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
  Quote the Bulgarian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Bulgarian Soldja View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Apr-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 54
  Quote Bulgarian Soldja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2006 at 09:44

I agree with your first suggestion maljkovic .... and i agree with u aswell bulgarian

Back to Top
NikeBG View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
  Quote NikeBG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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...
Back to Top
violentjack View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 10-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
  Quote violentjack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
violentjack View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 10-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
  Quote violentjack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
NikeBG View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
  Quote NikeBG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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...
Back to Top
the Bulgarian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
  Quote the Bulgarian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Digenis View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 22-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 694
  Quote Digenis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
the Bulgarian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 618
  Quote the Bulgarian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
NikeBG View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
  Quote NikeBG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2006 at 10:06
Well, if you don't like that map, here's another one:



Edited by NikeBG
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
violentjack View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 10-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
  Quote violentjack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
NikeBG View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 529
  Quote NikeBG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.249 seconds.