Talk:Krum

Blond and light-eyed inhabitants on the Balkans

This: "a light-hairеd man with light eyes, especially taking into consideration that there is no evidence for the existence of blond people on the Balkans till the arrival of the Slavs."

is a racist or a rather ethnic discriminatory remark, showing little knowledge and understanding of what migration and the shape of an ethnic group or a nation are. All Slavs are not blond, just like all other type of Caucasians are not brunettes. Also, this sounds like the Turkic theory of the origin of the Bulgars that is very dubious in in itself, not to mention the fact that Turks too were a good mixture of everything. I am about to remove this part in a few days unless someone has something reasonable to say about it. I find it insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.42.158 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Slavs are not particularly blond. They are originated from centre-eastern Europe, nearly the same areas as Bulgars. Scandinavians are know to be blond (some 95% to some extent). However, based on the DNA studies, the gene mutation leading to blonder skin tones and blue eyes did not happen in Scandinavia but likely closer to Black Sea. Migrations brought the gene to the Nordic countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.201.45 (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Krum an Emperor?

I haven't seen a source stating that Krum used the title "emperor" (or some equivalent). The title that is typically used by Bulgarian and foreign historians is "khan", which is why I reverted a recent edit. See e.g. RJ Crampton's Concise History of Bulgaria or Encyclopedia Britannica Tropcho (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept the "khan" argument based on Britannica but the promacedonia link is still a problem and should be removed. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, if you look at the history of the article you'll see that the title "emperor" was introduced recently without sources. Earlier today I merely restored the pervious version. Of course, just because a version has been around for a long time does not mean that it's right, but I believe that in this case it's not difficult to see that "khan" is the title used by most reliable sources (if not all). In case Zlatarski, Crampton, and Encyclopaedia Britannica are not sufficient, you can also have a look at The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2, The (old) Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4 or Steven Runciman's History of the First Bulgarian Empire. As far as I can tell, the issue is not contentious at all.

Regarding the promacedonia.org link: as mentioned in the edit summary, promacedonia.org is not the source, it has just made Zlatarski's text (which is in the public domain) available, a bit like archive.org. Perhaps more importantly, you can convince yourself that there's no promacedonia.org link in the article at all. I only included it in the edit summary, mostly for the sake of the person whose changes I was reverting. Tropcho (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A quick search at Google Books turns up a number of sources referring to Khan Krum, for instance Fine and Oxford. Better for use here might be this passage, which includes a cursory explanation of the title. An English langage source would be preferable, and "promacedonia.org" screams POV, even if they are simply reprinting a text. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• • In the medieval chronic of Manasseh, Krum had been entitled as "Kanas (Knyaz). Please, refer here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/52-manasses-chronicle.jpg

Ot the top is cleraly written: "КРОУМА КНѪЗА" - Many Thanks to Spiri! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are citing a single primary source, when we have numerous preferable secondary sources in English that use the term Khan. Please review the policies on reliable sources and naming conventions. Your edit is also incoherent and breaks the format of the page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Zaslo, we all sorry for the broken format - that is noted.

As to the "sources" - there are plenty.... contradicting sources for that period and subject. The point is that here it A FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA unlike THE CONVENTIONAL ONES! - Elsewhere there will no need of Wikipedia, to exist! So, dear young friend, if someone wishes to refer to the conventional (official) mainstream and simplified sources... He may! Here I, YOU, THEY... may interfere... and we do! Please, regard the primal sources are frequently "heavier" than the ones, compiled 1000 years latter! - Be healthy! --212.5.158.237 (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia policies I linked to in my previous post. On English Wikipedia, we use translations most common in English, and secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. Please stop making these changes to the page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the links you keep adding to the External Links sections are no longer functional. Please stop adding dead links back to the page. Your editing is becoming increasingly disruptive. Please stop. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We will provide s\one to check the "dead links". - Regards! --212.5.158.149 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Varbitsa_Pass mention a source by Vasil Zlatarski and Steven Runciman

According to the article, both scholars mention the battle between Krum and Nikephorus' forces that their description bring us the question, "how shall local and Western sources be treated ?" --- Ktsquare (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Khan vs kynaz

@Христо Зарев Игнатов: You don't have consensus for the use of the term kynaz over the current version with khan. Unless you can convince the community of your point of view you're going to have to accept use of the term khan. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There appear to be several editors (or perhaps one or two plus IP variations) changing 'khan' to 'knyaz' on numerous pages relating to this era. Now they are adding a citation to protobulgarians.com in support (e.g, here). The site is in Bulgarian, so I cannot evaluate it, but the name alone suggests a nationalist POV. We have numerous solid and authoritative sources, including Fine, using the term 'khan' for leaders during that period. WP:RS states a preference for English-language sources on English-language WP, so the protobulgarians site is shaky to begin with. Overturning the usage of 'khan' in solid academic sources based on a non-English web site of dubious origin should require a convincing argument, so these changes should be viewed with skepticism. Unfortunately, the editors pushing this change do not appear to have the language skills necessary to address this issue properly. (I'm pinging some of the editors who have been involved in these edits to seek wider opinion: @Cplakidas:, @TodorBozhinov:, @88.203.200.74:, @46.16.193.70:.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! IMO there's really not much more to be said here. This is a typical nationalist attempt to rewrite the fact that the Bulgars who gave their name to Bulgaria were a Turkic nomadic people by inventing Slavic etymologies, pretty much as ardent Russian nationalists deny that the Rus' were Scandinavians. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, Laszlo Panaflex, your summary is spot on. To be blunt, this often follows the ridiculous logic of "Bulgarians cannot possibly have any Turkic blood because the Turks had us enslaved for five centuries and they are evil." Or that coupled with wishful thinking that the Bulgars were Aryans... — Toдor Boжinov — 17:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Todor should have forgotten his mother language. - Nothing personal, but there is no other explanation, of impossibility to read ta simple expression. However, I already pointed at least two sources, apart of the originally shown on the same pages.

I can no imagine, that is possible to see a clear text, in our case, this is the famous "KANASUBIGI" and to stay unable to read it... I can not believe, that Todor Bozhinov is a Bulgarian?! Simply to say: The mentioned rulers originate one from another. They had been assigned to several titles (archont, vasileus, emperors, king etc>), but NEVER "HANS", or "khans"! - No such traces existing... Opposite - in their own mother tongue, (Bulgarian Slavic), it is clear that they were called "Knyaz"! - That is clearly shown in the Manasseh chronicle, for example. On the Wiki-pages, of the many of ruler, you had mentioned, SOMEONE- not me, had posted illustration. They clearly show.. fore you before your very same eyes, what is written there: "kanasubigi". That is a wrongly marked (not in our that time's letter system), and it is written without spaces as it was all over the Europe, at that times. Many of the scholars, that YOU, ALL OF YOU (or someone else), not me had pointed as "sources", trying to read the expression, "kanasubigi" , are passing trough many and different complicated ways to 2 readings: "A great ruler" or "A ruler form God". - That is what THEY, THE SCHOLARS, say... The simple answer is BEFORE everyone eyes: "Kanas ut Boga" - it is same even now in Bulgarian language, and in the most of the Slavic tongues! - It is exactly same! - Knyaz ot Boga! - Ruller from the God. That is before all the eyes, and that is why, EVEN IF ONLY ME SAY IT, it should be accepted at least for a talk and as an alternative theory, by now! - This is strange, to ask me to prove that the water is wet! - Go out under the rain and have it! - open your eyes and see it! No one could be so blind, to reject a clearly seen thing! Now, what happened in the media - Wikipedia?! - This is NOT ONLY ONE MAN WORK! - I MEAN, IT IS NOT ONLY ME DOING ALL THIS EDITIONS! There are at least few people, that never new, who also make it, and I never asked them for it! - And really, there are few other editors which I asked to take part in this conversations, exactly as you do now. So, finally, let us clear for the moment only this point - with the titles. There is no break of any rule. Good night! --Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hristo, first of all, the inscriptions of the Bulgarian khans where kanasubigi is mentioned are in Greek, not Bulgarian. My mother tongue is not medieval Greek and I cannot have forgotten it if I had never known it in the first place. Second, it has been clearly explained to you by Constantine already that the Bulgarian translation of the Manasses Chronicle is a source from the 14th century and it cannot be a reliable reference for royal titles in the 7th-9th centuries.

What you are expected to — but cannot possibly — bring to the table is proof that knyaz is established in modern Bulgarian and international historiography as the title of Bulgarian rulers before Boris I. And this you cannot do because the established title is khan.

Basically of this has been repeated before already and I don't believe this discussion is getting anywhere. So I'd like to invite you to bring your enthusiasm to edit Wikipedia to another topic where your contributions will be more useful and positive. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Todor, we all agree that the famous scriptures "KANASUBIGI" / "KANASUBAGA" are made in so called "Greek" alphabet. That is why, they were written initially wrong way - the Latin and the Greek letters systems, are lack of some specific signs (from the times till now) for the specific SLAVIC sounds like ю, я, ъ, й, ь and even more for ѣ and Ѫ. If you thing about the true solution of the topic, you may refer to the old, so called "slavonic-chirche" book and you will see the way that title is written in Cyrillic letter system: КНЯЗ / "кънѧѕь". So, that impossibility to make the scripture correct way, using only the 24 Greek letters vs 40 Bulgarian ones, followed to have it the way, we now discuss: KANAS ->"кънѧѕь". That is all. - P.S. Dear Todor, if you feel your lack of having enough deep and wide knowledge about the history and linguistic matter, please, let the other to do it! https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B7 - Good day! -212.5.158.183 (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting theory, but complete hogwash. The title "kanasubigi" is attested already from the 8th century, the Old Slavonic alphabet was not created until the 860s. And Greek traditionally prefers a phonetic approximation of foreign names, never strict transliteration as you suggest. So if a Greek-speaker wrote "kanasubigi", then that was what he heard. Constantine ✍ 20:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The anonymous users and some registered try to change khan to knyaz on Bulgarian Wikipedia, too. There we have blocked some of the addresses and have locked some of the articles. --Lord Bumbury (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Constantine, Constantine, your y'days statement is precisely what our colleagues stated a bit up: The "Greek" wrote precisely what he listened but not understood! - He listened the whole expression as one word: "KANASUBIGI" or sometimes "KANASUBAGA". The clear and strait reading of the expression is open for every normal, Slavic speaking person in the world: KANAS U BOGA - "Княз от(у) Бога" - that makes sense and no one can deny it, without to make himself seeming irregular type of person.

I also may contribute with a pretty high number of other arguments and sources but for today will limit to point other Slavic words, definitely used by the Bulgarians at that time: Malamir (Slavic - "A Little Peace"), Bezmer (Slavic: literally - "Without a measure", Endless); Umor = Umeren - (Slavic - "Tempered"); Vineh - slavic... etc...

I am pretty sure, that the warriors as Lord Bumbury Lord Bumbury will feel better if they also proceed to use the common sense in the common work!

Good days and long, happy editing to all concerned! ;) --212.5.158.170 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Other pages and edit summaries link to this discussion. Please stop changing the header of the thread as it breaks those links. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This article seems to be a bit lopsided

How reliable is Michael the Syrian? The article seems to regard Nikephoros I as a war criminal but Krum as a hero. The by no means squeamish Warren Treadgold doesn't mention any particular atrocities committed by either party. He does mention sacking on both sides and he does say that the garrison at Pliska was slaughtered, but that isn't really of note - Krum himself butchered people as he found necessary. There is no mention of calculated brutality. But it looks like this article, like so many others, has become the victim of nationalism. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with above. It fails to mention that when capturing Serdica he massagered the whole garrison of 6000 men to which he had given his word on safe passage (see the article on the siege of Serdica). There is clearly a nationalistic tone in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.201.45 (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I added the slaughter at Serdica to the article to be fair to both sides. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Should we make a bet about when the first nationalist undoes this change? :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Etymology of his name

Has this cited source been accepted by anyone other than Turks? I don't know Turkish, but doesn't he say that names like Malamir and Presian are also Turkish? Belleten, Volume 52, Issue 203 5.53.249.34 (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)