This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Serbian historians and those from republic of Macedonia consider Samuil and his succsesors as Slavs or macedonian Slavs and not Bulgars,so puting that Peter was Bulgar is not neutral.He was emperor of Bulgaria,but it doesn`t mean he was Bulgar.Just like Constantine Bodin was emperor of Bulgaria,but he wasn`t Bulgar.Uprising started in modern Serbia,among ancestors of modern Serbs so it should stay how his name is written in serbian.
Ostrogorski says calls last archbishop Slav John(Словен Јован),if someone else says different it should be put in the article.
If quotes for other things are needed,I will give it.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 04:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We should not mix terms Bulgar,Bulgarian and Bulgaria.
I know what the rest of historian think,but some have different view which should be represented.
Delyans or Odelyan(to carve out of wood) name very clearly says he has Slavonic origin(which means his descendants would either be Bulgarians or Serbs,we cannot say which) and thats why I only put Slav,`cause in XI century was still very clear distinction between Bulgars and Slavs.
I know that Bulgarians are more Slavs then Bulgars,but Slav could also be Serb(in this context) as well as Bulgarian.
These parts of modern Serbia were parts of Bulgaria YES,BUT they had Slavonic,not Bulgar population.(If you have sources which says differently please quote me when and where those Bulgars from Belgrade and Pomoravlje went,`couse I`m curios.)What happened to them we could not tell.They moved out,or their descendants became Serbs or Bulgarians.That`s why I believe it is enough to put Slav,but OK if you think that Slav/Bulgar is better or precise definition,then OK,but both names of rebel leaders(Delyan and Tihomir) are very clearly slavonic.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
...remove any mention of this ridiculous "Slavic uprising".
Are you my friend sugesting that ancestors of modern Bulgarians also lived in modern Albania and rebeled under Tihomir?You should become comedian.
If etnogenezis of Bulgarians was completed in XI centhury,how some of Samuils men had very clear Bulgar(Krakra),while other had very clear Slav/christian names (Dragomuz,Bogdan,Ivac,Nikolitza,Gavra)?Shouldn`t all of them have Slav/christian names,like Bulgarians today?Or I`m wrong again?
No,he was rebel leader who proclaimed himself tsar of Bulgaria,he led rebelion not state or even empire.He didn`t have capital or court or any other form of power.
Ok,you`re again hiding behind masses.Masses believe that Earth was flat,so it still doesn`t mean they right.I don`t see what`s the problem to explain and show other views.To you(from world and Bulgaria) it`s alternative theory,but for us(from Serbia and RM) your theory is alternative.I have my sources,if needed I will quote them and it is expected the same from all others.Nothing more,nothing less.
As I said,it should stay he was a Slav(Bulgarian or Serb),`cause that`s what he was.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
To Todor Bozhinov: The objective, scientific truth is not a matter of consensus or out-voting the "other side". The objective facts in this case are very stubborn; Deljan's rebelion started in Zeta (nowadays Montentegro) and NEVER, I repeat, NEVER involved Paristrion (Bulgaria proper) and old Bulgarian centers within its territory - Preslav, Pliska and Dorostol.
The uprising of Georgius Vojteh in 1072, as well, started in connection with Serbian movements in Zeta and, again, Danube Bulgaria (Paristrion) was not part of it. Just a chance? Well, I don't think so!
These two historical events, Deljan's and Vojteh's, strongly point toward a distinct
ethnic differences between people of Zeta, Morava and Vardar valley on one side and Bulgaria proper on the other side.
As to your question: "if Peter Delyan was indeed a Serb, why then he did not act in any cooperation with the Serb states; and why if he wanted to lead the Serbs to freedom he adopted the name of the Bulgarian Emperor Peter I?"
Who said he did not act in cooperation with Serbian states? The Byzantine sources? Again, to remind you: Deljan's uprising was just continuation of Vojislav's (Serbian ruler of Zeta) victories over Byzantines. The fact that Byzantine sources do not mention this connection directly does not imply its non-existence.
The name Peter is from greek origin and means stown.The name Delyan was also according to chroniclеs from greek origin and means with lower origin. Peter was tsar of Bulgaria. Even Belgrade as name was mentioned for first time under Bulgarian rule. There ware any Serbians, Macedonians or something else there. 85.187.30.237 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Look,if we like to be neutral,we must consider that that what today mean word "bulgarian" is not with the same meaning in mediaeval(for me),especially if we like to quote byzantine sources.For byzanntines,all people who was under Bulgarian rule were bulgarians,people from Macedonia,whole Serbia,even Bosnia.It's true that this countries were conqured by bulgarians and were part of First Bulgarian Empire,that's why byzantines refer to this population as bulgarians.But,it's evident that those population wasn't racially homogenous,for simple reason:modern peoples from these countries and Bulgaria,even today are racially different,thus must be that they are different before 10 centuries,if we know that there is not some significant migrations on Balkans last 10 centuries between these countries.So,maybe I'm bore,but my point is:there is no nations on Balkans in mediaeval with same sense like today,bulgarian today and in mediaeval have not same meaning,and for byzantines whole Slavic population on Balkans is bulgarian. From those population on Balkans,today grow Serbian,Montenegrian,Bosnian,Macedonian and modern Bulgarian nation.
We have not evidences for nationality of Petar Delyan,but in this light we don't need it.But we can say about reasons for uprising of Petar Delyan and we can say what were objectives of this uprising.If the objectives were restoration of Bulgarian state,with same center of power,and with the same political and military organisation,then provide facts or logical conclusions about that. If he adopted the name of emperor Peter I,what was the reason for that,some benfitions or something? I read the all article and discussions,but I haven't found real reasons to believe that the goal of uprising was restoration of Bulgarian state,but I'm willing to believe that goal was separation of byzantine empire.Those countries where rebbelion appear weren't originaly bulgarian,but conquered from bulgarian emperors.So pls,explain me:did you think that is logical somebody to make rebellions against one conqueror for restoration of power of his previous conqueror. I would here to notice that in same light we can see the uprisings of comitopules in Macedonia in 969,and reign of tzar Samoil,but this is not the place about that. So,beside nationals feeling of modern Bulgarians,Macedonians and Serbs,I'm just a person who like to know more about the mediaeval history of Balkan.If here exist some real historian,I will be very grateful for answers and comentaries of my opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.186.160 ( talk) 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, provid sources for your changes. Jingby ( talk) 09:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with user with ip address 79.125.186.160.I mean what is unclear here:The territory where the rebellion appear(from Nish down to Salonica) was firstly conquered from Bulgarians, after that this terrytory was conquered by Byzantine Empire.Those facts you can found in every history book, just choose the source that you like.But the question here is:did you think that is logical somebody to make rebellion against one conqueror for restoration of power of his previous conqueror?Or is more logical somebody to make rebellion for liberation of his own people and constitution of his own state?So pls tell me, how you conclude that this rebellion had Bulgarian caracter? 62.162.193.105 ( talk) 18:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
IP, read the added sources, pleace. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 08:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what about talking you!? The upper post is my first post on Wikipedia, and here I express my opinion, and think that my opinion is logical.I didn't see here what you think about this...I mean isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and isn't here the place for arguing about the facts in the article?Isn't this in the spirit of the science or you just prefere mediaeval dogmas?! I just can't believe this...Btw I'm not from Karposh,there is just the head of my internet provider,propably the same as of user with ip 79.125.186.160 62.162.193.105 ( talk) 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I realy didn't understand you.When and where I edited something on Wikipedia?Pls tell me, I realy want to know.Btw my interest are natural sciences, I'm electrical engineer,my hoby is audio electronics and acoustics,and from last year history too, but I realy have no time to contribute here with something serious.Maybe soon!Btw,my mind is accustomed to think logically...I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't see here somebody to smite my claim and the claims of the user with ip 79.125.186.160, and I think that reference to the source does not necessarily mean that some claiming is true.Anyway thank you for your attention! 62.162.193.105 ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This is funny, bulgarization is becoming ill. Since when Kosara, Miroslava, Petar Deljan, Ivan Vladislav are Bolgarian names ?? -- 92.37.26.220 ( talk) 21:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand the theme cited in "During the summer of 1040 in the theme of Bulgaria" is a reference to the northern region of the Macedonian theme. Is that correct or was there a bulgar theme that I'm not aware of? José Luiz talk 02:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI: there is request to move the article Peter IV of Bulgaria to Peter II of Bulgaria on the relevant Talk page. Borsoka ( talk) 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this article's best title Petar Delyan or Peter Delyan? The latter was the stable title and seems to be more used according to ngrams. Titles in non-English Wikipedias seem to translate to Peter. See also Uprising of Petar Delyan.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Serbian historians and those from republic of Macedonia consider Samuil and his succsesors as Slavs or macedonian Slavs and not Bulgars,so puting that Peter was Bulgar is not neutral.He was emperor of Bulgaria,but it doesn`t mean he was Bulgar.Just like Constantine Bodin was emperor of Bulgaria,but he wasn`t Bulgar.Uprising started in modern Serbia,among ancestors of modern Serbs so it should stay how his name is written in serbian.
Ostrogorski says calls last archbishop Slav John(Словен Јован),if someone else says different it should be put in the article.
If quotes for other things are needed,I will give it.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 04:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We should not mix terms Bulgar,Bulgarian and Bulgaria.
I know what the rest of historian think,but some have different view which should be represented.
Delyans or Odelyan(to carve out of wood) name very clearly says he has Slavonic origin(which means his descendants would either be Bulgarians or Serbs,we cannot say which) and thats why I only put Slav,`cause in XI century was still very clear distinction between Bulgars and Slavs.
I know that Bulgarians are more Slavs then Bulgars,but Slav could also be Serb(in this context) as well as Bulgarian.
These parts of modern Serbia were parts of Bulgaria YES,BUT they had Slavonic,not Bulgar population.(If you have sources which says differently please quote me when and where those Bulgars from Belgrade and Pomoravlje went,`couse I`m curios.)What happened to them we could not tell.They moved out,or their descendants became Serbs or Bulgarians.That`s why I believe it is enough to put Slav,but OK if you think that Slav/Bulgar is better or precise definition,then OK,but both names of rebel leaders(Delyan and Tihomir) are very clearly slavonic.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
...remove any mention of this ridiculous "Slavic uprising".
Are you my friend sugesting that ancestors of modern Bulgarians also lived in modern Albania and rebeled under Tihomir?You should become comedian.
If etnogenezis of Bulgarians was completed in XI centhury,how some of Samuils men had very clear Bulgar(Krakra),while other had very clear Slav/christian names (Dragomuz,Bogdan,Ivac,Nikolitza,Gavra)?Shouldn`t all of them have Slav/christian names,like Bulgarians today?Or I`m wrong again?
No,he was rebel leader who proclaimed himself tsar of Bulgaria,he led rebelion not state or even empire.He didn`t have capital or court or any other form of power.
Ok,you`re again hiding behind masses.Masses believe that Earth was flat,so it still doesn`t mean they right.I don`t see what`s the problem to explain and show other views.To you(from world and Bulgaria) it`s alternative theory,but for us(from Serbia and RM) your theory is alternative.I have my sources,if needed I will quote them and it is expected the same from all others.Nothing more,nothing less.
As I said,it should stay he was a Slav(Bulgarian or Serb),`cause that`s what he was.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
To Todor Bozhinov: The objective, scientific truth is not a matter of consensus or out-voting the "other side". The objective facts in this case are very stubborn; Deljan's rebelion started in Zeta (nowadays Montentegro) and NEVER, I repeat, NEVER involved Paristrion (Bulgaria proper) and old Bulgarian centers within its territory - Preslav, Pliska and Dorostol.
The uprising of Georgius Vojteh in 1072, as well, started in connection with Serbian movements in Zeta and, again, Danube Bulgaria (Paristrion) was not part of it. Just a chance? Well, I don't think so!
These two historical events, Deljan's and Vojteh's, strongly point toward a distinct
ethnic differences between people of Zeta, Morava and Vardar valley on one side and Bulgaria proper on the other side.
As to your question: "if Peter Delyan was indeed a Serb, why then he did not act in any cooperation with the Serb states; and why if he wanted to lead the Serbs to freedom he adopted the name of the Bulgarian Emperor Peter I?"
Who said he did not act in cooperation with Serbian states? The Byzantine sources? Again, to remind you: Deljan's uprising was just continuation of Vojislav's (Serbian ruler of Zeta) victories over Byzantines. The fact that Byzantine sources do not mention this connection directly does not imply its non-existence.
The name Peter is from greek origin and means stown.The name Delyan was also according to chroniclеs from greek origin and means with lower origin. Peter was tsar of Bulgaria. Even Belgrade as name was mentioned for first time under Bulgarian rule. There ware any Serbians, Macedonians or something else there. 85.187.30.237 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Look,if we like to be neutral,we must consider that that what today mean word "bulgarian" is not with the same meaning in mediaeval(for me),especially if we like to quote byzantine sources.For byzanntines,all people who was under Bulgarian rule were bulgarians,people from Macedonia,whole Serbia,even Bosnia.It's true that this countries were conqured by bulgarians and were part of First Bulgarian Empire,that's why byzantines refer to this population as bulgarians.But,it's evident that those population wasn't racially homogenous,for simple reason:modern peoples from these countries and Bulgaria,even today are racially different,thus must be that they are different before 10 centuries,if we know that there is not some significant migrations on Balkans last 10 centuries between these countries.So,maybe I'm bore,but my point is:there is no nations on Balkans in mediaeval with same sense like today,bulgarian today and in mediaeval have not same meaning,and for byzantines whole Slavic population on Balkans is bulgarian. From those population on Balkans,today grow Serbian,Montenegrian,Bosnian,Macedonian and modern Bulgarian nation.
We have not evidences for nationality of Petar Delyan,but in this light we don't need it.But we can say about reasons for uprising of Petar Delyan and we can say what were objectives of this uprising.If the objectives were restoration of Bulgarian state,with same center of power,and with the same political and military organisation,then provide facts or logical conclusions about that. If he adopted the name of emperor Peter I,what was the reason for that,some benfitions or something? I read the all article and discussions,but I haven't found real reasons to believe that the goal of uprising was restoration of Bulgarian state,but I'm willing to believe that goal was separation of byzantine empire.Those countries where rebbelion appear weren't originaly bulgarian,but conquered from bulgarian emperors.So pls,explain me:did you think that is logical somebody to make rebellions against one conqueror for restoration of power of his previous conqueror. I would here to notice that in same light we can see the uprisings of comitopules in Macedonia in 969,and reign of tzar Samoil,but this is not the place about that. So,beside nationals feeling of modern Bulgarians,Macedonians and Serbs,I'm just a person who like to know more about the mediaeval history of Balkan.If here exist some real historian,I will be very grateful for answers and comentaries of my opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.186.160 ( talk) 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, provid sources for your changes. Jingby ( talk) 09:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with user with ip address 79.125.186.160.I mean what is unclear here:The territory where the rebellion appear(from Nish down to Salonica) was firstly conquered from Bulgarians, after that this terrytory was conquered by Byzantine Empire.Those facts you can found in every history book, just choose the source that you like.But the question here is:did you think that is logical somebody to make rebellion against one conqueror for restoration of power of his previous conqueror?Or is more logical somebody to make rebellion for liberation of his own people and constitution of his own state?So pls tell me, how you conclude that this rebellion had Bulgarian caracter? 62.162.193.105 ( talk) 18:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
IP, read the added sources, pleace. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 08:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what about talking you!? The upper post is my first post on Wikipedia, and here I express my opinion, and think that my opinion is logical.I didn't see here what you think about this...I mean isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and isn't here the place for arguing about the facts in the article?Isn't this in the spirit of the science or you just prefere mediaeval dogmas?! I just can't believe this...Btw I'm not from Karposh,there is just the head of my internet provider,propably the same as of user with ip 79.125.186.160 62.162.193.105 ( talk) 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I realy didn't understand you.When and where I edited something on Wikipedia?Pls tell me, I realy want to know.Btw my interest are natural sciences, I'm electrical engineer,my hoby is audio electronics and acoustics,and from last year history too, but I realy have no time to contribute here with something serious.Maybe soon!Btw,my mind is accustomed to think logically...I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't see here somebody to smite my claim and the claims of the user with ip 79.125.186.160, and I think that reference to the source does not necessarily mean that some claiming is true.Anyway thank you for your attention! 62.162.193.105 ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This is funny, bulgarization is becoming ill. Since when Kosara, Miroslava, Petar Deljan, Ivan Vladislav are Bolgarian names ?? -- 92.37.26.220 ( talk) 21:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand the theme cited in "During the summer of 1040 in the theme of Bulgaria" is a reference to the northern region of the Macedonian theme. Is that correct or was there a bulgar theme that I'm not aware of? José Luiz talk 02:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI: there is request to move the article Peter IV of Bulgaria to Peter II of Bulgaria on the relevant Talk page. Borsoka ( talk) 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this article's best title Petar Delyan or Peter Delyan? The latter was the stable title and seems to be more used according to ngrams. Titles in non-English Wikipedias seem to translate to Peter. See also Uprising of Petar Delyan.