Greatest Bulgarian ruler

Yes you've right, i meaned samuil.I'm terriblly sorry.

You are most likely right, Ludovik.

Originally posted by Anton I found interesting that many people in Bulgaria think that this focusing on Tzarigrad took too much resources and was the reason for next Bulgarian losts from Russians and Byzantines. I don't know. Could be true to some extent.

That's absolute nonsence if you ask me.Bulgaria was huge,it had vast resource deposits and tonns of manpower.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c152/Liudovik/SimeonI.jpg
The light yellow territories are the ones which Simeon conquered.
It's wrong to say that the problem was that he didn't want to improve the conquered territories,it's true that they can't be fully integrated in such a short time but look at the older lands-the huge lands of the avars in the north,which Khan Krum conquered,were in the country for more than a century-it's impossible for them not to be improved and integrated.And no one can convince me that they were a useless wasteland-they cold be of great help to get men and raw materials in the battle against Kievan Rus.
The reason for the defeat by Kievan Rus was Emperor Peter-he's one of the most pathetic(jaluk) rulers the country has ever had.That's the ONLY thing that i don't like about Simeon-he coudn't find time to teach his son properly how to rule.


Edited by Liudovik_Nemski - 28-Jan-2007 at 09:00

Originally posted by Athanasios Simeon was unlucky, he lost once but he lost everything...

It's very difficult to determine one since they all led the country to great glory but in different ways-military,cultural etc...
But the greatest for me is:
His Imperial Majesty Tzar Simeon I The Great, Emperor of the Danube Bulgars




Edited by Liudovik_Nemski - 16-Feb-2007 at 16:35

King Kaloian (1197 - 1207) was the greatest, in my opinion.

My vote would have to go to Simeon for many reasons, one of them being that he was the cause of the Bulgarian golden age. During this time Bulgaria was translating classical greek texts long before many western european powers. He also threatened the stability of one of the strongest empires in Europe, the Byzantine Empire.

Edited by Peter III - 15-Jul-2006 at 17:50

Yes I dont like Simeon for the same reason

Edited by Subotai - 03-Jul-2006 at 17:36

I haven't read for 100 000. The only numbers I remember are 30 000 or 32 000 (according to the different sources) slain Arabs in the general battle.
As for Ioan Asen II, I like him pretty much too - less bloodshed, more diplomacy and, of course, "loved not only by Bulgarians, but also by Romeans, and by all others". Although I don't like his constant change of sides, which by the end didn't bring anything stable, except the rise of Nicea.
Btw, when mentioning Ivailo, we should note that he did crush the Tatars, but those Tatars he crushed were not the main Tatar army, just a part of them. Cuz if it was the whole Tatar army, I dare not imagine...

I voted for Yoan-Asen II.
For all my respect for Simeon the Great, Samuil, Kaloyan and all the other great rulers, he was able to create an Empire with a single battle. True, afterwards he fought with the hungarians and the niceans, but Yoan-Asen's rule was mostly peacefull, and made cultural leap for the bulgarians. If only he had lived long enough, his son Peter haden't died, or he haden't maried Irina... oh, well. No one is perfect. Even a sort-lived, an empire is an empire.

Other than those who I already mentioned, Ivailo (in whose honour is my nick-name "Burdokva"). Practically, the only man who defeated the mongols at their height, at the same time leading a civil war against the tsar.
And yet, he also repulsed and defeated the byzantines several times.

Though, by far the most neglected of the great khans/tsars is Tervel- his (of course, with the aid of the byzantines) defeat of the arabas in 717 prevented an even larger arab invasion of Europe than the one stopped at Tours in 732.