Talk:Battle of Pliska

POV issues: resolved

I'll admit that I've studied Byzantine history more extensively than Bulgarian history, and so I'm naturally inclined to view this article from a Byzantine rather than a Bulgarian perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to me that by all objective standards this article is heavily biased in the Bulgarians' favor. It consistently stresses Byzantine cruelty, for example when it states that "Nikephoros I and his army were busy pillaging, killing women and children, devastating and plundering the Bulgarian capital." Killing women and children almost always accompanies the sack of a city, and the sole purpose of including the phrase here is to portray the Byzantines as excessively cruel. The article also implies that the Byzantines were arrogant and militarily incompetent. Furthermore, Gligan, the user who contributed what is in my opinion the most biased material in this article, is himself Bulgarian and makes little attempt to maintain a neutral POV. Unless anyone would care to come to this article's defense, I'm going to nominate it to be checked for neutrality.

I am sorry to answer so late, but it is now that I have spotted that. In fact I have not written this information from my imagination, I have followed relatively closely "History of the First Bulgarian Empire" and I have even saved some things about Byzantine cruelty, which is in fact the reason for their defeat. Obviously they (or at least their Emperor) were militarily incompetent and arrogant in that case which cost their victory. No capable commander should lose his time pillaging a town while his enemy is not fully defeated and still capable for resistance. In fact the Byzantine POV was also the same, most of the original sourses for the battle are Byzantine... --Gligan 18:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Pillage and killing in Pliska is important for this article more than some others. It explains the main reason why Byzanthians were defeated: while ransacking the town they gave time for Bulgarians to organise an ambush in the Varbitsa pass. So it relates to the battle itself and is not put only for the purpose to highlight cruelty of Bysanthians.

As for the cruelty itself, in how many town ransackings, children are ground with stones, as reported by a chronicler of that time (who was on the Byzanthian side) ? Lantonov 09:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you (user who started the talk) could have put your signature at least... As for being biased, the article has clearly stated these sources and has incorporated an extended quotation from a Byzantine source on the well-known cruelty and brutality of the invading Byzantine force:

Michael the Syrian, patriarch of the Syrians Jacobites in XIIth century described in his Chronicle the brutalities and atrocities of the Roman Emperor Nikephoros I Genik. “Nicephorus, emperor of the Romans, walked in Bulgarians land: he was victorious and killed a great number of them. He reached their capital, took it over and devastated it. His savagery went to such a point that he ordered to bring their small children, got them tied down on earth and made thresh grain stones to smash them.” The Byzantine soldiers looted and plundered; burnt down the unharvested fields, cut the tendons of the oxes, slaughtered sheep and pigs. [10] The Emperor took over Krum's treasury, locked it and did not allow his troops to reach it. [11]

Each sack of a city is a cruel thing yet you don't get similar descriptions of each and every sack, especially descriptions coming from the aggressor's side. Considering this, I don't think the neutrality label is adequate. --Amigov 09:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about not including a signature. I don't edit Wikipedia often, and I'm not at all familiar with technical details like that. Let me clarify my objection to the pillaging line. I don't object to it being in there, and I don't question the relevancy or the authenticity of Michael the Syrian's description. What I do object to is the sentence in its present form. I think it should be changed from "While Nikephoros I and his army were busy pillaging, killing women and children, devastating and plundering the Bulgarian capital" to something like the less biased "While Nikephoros I and his army were plundering the Bulgarian capital..." The article can provide primary sources describing the carnage, but the article's authors, who are supposed to be objective, shouldn't try to insert bias of their own. Also, this article's bias is evident not only in what it contains but what it does not contain. If you check the article's history, you'll see that "When Nicephorus I became emperor in 802, he planned to reincorporate Bulgar-held territory back into the empire. In 809, he sacked Pliska, the Bulgar capital, and although he did not launch a major military expedition against them, he settled many Anatolian families in the area," was replaced with "When Nicephorus I became emperor in 802, he planned to reincorporate Bulgarian-held territory back into the empire. In 807 he launched a campaign but only reached Odrin and achieved nothing because of a conspirasy in his capital." Their are numerous other edits that attempt to skip over Byzantine successes while drawing attention to or glorifying Bulgarian ones. One last objection: the 80,000 figure for the strength of the Byzantine army is unsourced.

I don't think Michael the Syrian can really be considered a friendly Byzantine source (nor was he a contemporary, writing 400 years later and on the opposite side of the Byzantine world). Adam Bishop 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Michael the Syrian was a leader of the Orthodox Chirch in Syria, and Byzanthium was orthodox throughout its history, while Bulgarians were heathens at the time of the said battle, this chronicler can be considered leaning to the Byzanthian rather than the Bulgarian side. As for the time, it is true, he writes 400 years after the battle, but this doesn't change things that much. Lantonov 06:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

He was the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch; there was a Greek Patriarch of Antioch at the same time, appointed from Constantinople. I don't know if they were actively antagonistic in Michael's time, but I doubt Michael was very pro-Byzantine. Adam Bishop 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you register an account in Wikipedia, you'll have at your disposal a button up at your editing window for your signature. As for the change as you have proposed it, I wouldn't mind. Indeed, the article provides enough information on Nicephorus's cruelty so it doesn't need to be stressed in each and every sentence. I suggest that you change that sentence as you have proposed, add any relevant information (with the respective sources quoted) and remove the neutrality label. Have in mind, though, that this should be an article about that specific battle, not about all the campaigns led by Nicephorus! As for Michael the Syrian: well, he is clearly a Byzantine chronicler, not a Bulgarian one. --Amigov 10:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: I removed the words, objected to by the anonymous user:pillaging, killing women and children, devastating because, indeed, they are repeated, I also added some additional sourced information, to make this event more concrete. I propose removing the neutrality label. Lantonov 09:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the article has many details, it is rendered suspect by its anti-Byzantine approach. I have flagged these concerns in 'POV' and 'expert-verify' flags at the start of the article. Anotherwikifan (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Anotherwikifan

This article seems to violate NPOV standards. It is written with a Bulgarian bias. It would be good if a Byzantine expert were to edit it. Anotherwikifan 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Now tel us what precisely you do not like. Give us at least one example cause the way you've written it, it doesn't help us understand your concerns. --Laveol ^T 11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you are more specific about these POV claims. The article passed B review in which it was said that it does not have POV issues (by a Greek reviewer). The bulk of the material is taken from Byzantine sources and western Byzantologists. So if it has some POV, it would be on the Byzantine side. As an editor, I particularly strived to remove the anti-Byzantine, and anti-Nicephorus POV in the writings, e.g., of Theophanes, and the anonymous chronicist. So if you place tags, place them at specific statements that you consider POVish. Otherwise, this is only your opinion without any support, and these wholesale POV tags will be removed shortly. --Lantonov (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I admire the great detail of your article, but it is tarnished by the many examples of a 'Bulgarian POV'. I wish I had the time to go into detail, and so help the polishing of the article, but I will point to two examples only. (1) The majority of the primary and secondary references seem to be Bulgarian; (2) As an example of the many pro-Bulgarian comments, in the 'Aftermath' section, there is the comment "The Empire would never live down and forget its shame; and the Bulgars would ever be heartened by the memory of their triumph.". I doubt whether the Byzantine Empire 'never live[d] down its shame'. For the next six hundred years? Reference please. Anotherwikifan (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For the first concern, you are right that the balance Bulgarian-Greek sources is tipped towards Bulgarian sources. This is not done on purpose. It is because I have in my disposal mostly Bulgarian sources. I would be glad if someone finds and puts here Greek sources with interpretations on this battle. The only Greek source I found is a book on the logistics and deployment of the Byzantine Army. Material from this book is included extensively in the article, at places even risking to go out of context.

The second concern: this quote is taken out of Sir Runciman's book, a way too literally, I think. This conclusion should be softened a bit. --Lantonov (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, I admire the article, but feel it paints a 'valiant Bulgars vs evil Empire' picture. But if the quote is from the Runciman (a widely respected historian of Byzantium) book, then it has some weight. It would be a simple matter to reference it (with page and edition). Perhaps the many 'seeming Bulgar POV' comments are actually justified, but they would all benefit from references. Generally, I echo the anonymous comment at the top of this page - a Byzantine expert's edits would add to the article's already significant value. Anotherwikifan (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome an expert too. However, I do not think that the article paints "valiant Bulgars vs evil Empire". In the early variants of the article, atrocities of Byzantines were pre-exposed, and this is what that anonymous editor disapproved. His concerns were addressed and the objectionable phrases removed. Further, the two basic sources, Theophanes and the anonymous vaticanus (Scriptor Incertus), although Byzantines themselves, are highly critical of Nicephorus and the whole expedition, and call the Emperor a lot of bad names. Especially Theophanes, he invokes the worst personages from the Bible to describe Nicephorus. I used Bury who counters this bias, and points to the good qualities of Nicephorus, for instance, his wise statemanship by sensing the Bulgar danger and taking pre-emptive measures like colonization of Slav regions and the expedition itself. Also, the article makes it clear that the initial aggression is on the part of Krum (so that it is more a case of "the Empire strikes back"), and softens the primary sources in many other places: the explanation of the ritual of the skull cup, the respect that Krum had for Nicephorus, the grief for the many killed Byzantine soldiers, etc. There are many other interesting materials with details that can be added but somehow I lost my desire to work on historical and political articles because of the time-wasting polemics and the risk for punishment. As per your recommendation, the reference to Runciman was put after the arguable statement. The book is in the "secondary sources" section. --Lantonov (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do not think that this is the most brilliant conclusion by Runciman. It is true that the memory of this defeat lived in the Byzantines many centuries after. However, I propose to replace this statement with: "The Byzantine military might was severely crippled and the memory of this defeat haunted the Byzantine society for centuries after the battle". Does it sound more neutral? --Lantonov (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: In the absence of objections I proceed as proposed. Substituting the POV tag with 'Unbalanced' tag. --Lantonov (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"The devastating rising of the Dog"

See below. Why does this section even exist here? It adds almost nothing to the discussion and reads like another author just inserted into the article. Surely this can be said if needed in two or three sentences? I think that the whole section can be deleted?

"The devastating rising of the Dog" The sky above Pliska (43°23′N, 27°8′E) at dawn, 03:06 a.m., on July 23, 811. Half of the Sun's disk has appeared above the horizon from the east. The Dog Star (Sirius of the constellation Canis Major (Big Dog)) has risen 2 minutes before the Sun (heliacal rising). The moon is late in its last quarter in the constellation Cancer (Crab). The sky above Pliska ( [show location on an interactive map] 43°23′N, 27°8′E) at dawn, 03:06 a.m., on July 23, 811. Half of the Sun's disk has appeared above the horizon from the east. The Dog Star (Sirius of the constellation Canis Major (Big Dog)) has risen 2 minutes before the Sun (heliacal rising). The moon is late in its last quarter in the constellation Cancer (Crab).

The expedition of Nicephorus coincided with the heliacal rising of Sirius, the Dog Star; this occurs in the period of the year when Sirius first becomes visible above the eastern horizon at dawn, after a period when it was hidden below the horizon or when it was just above the horizon but hidden by the brightness of the sun. The period of the heliacal rising of the Dog Star determines the Dog Days, or as the Romans called them, caniculares dies (days of the dogs). For the ancient Egyptians, Sirius appeared just before the season of the Nile's flooding, so they used the star as a "watchdog" for that event on which they based the Egyptian calendar. For the ancient Greeks, the appearance of Sirius heralded the hot and dry summer. Due to its brightness, Sirius would have been noted to twinkle more in the unsettled weather conditions of early summer. To Greek observers, this signified certain emanations which caused its malign influence. People suffering its effects were said to be 'star-struck' (astroboletos). This popular belief carried on to the Middle Ages, when the Dog Days were considered to be an evil time "when the seas boiled, wine turned sour, dogs grew mad, and all creatures became languid, causing to man burning fevers, hysterics, and phrensies" [13] The traditional ancient timing of the Dog Days is the 40 days beginning July 3 and ending August 11; however, at present, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the heliacal rising of Sirius has shifted with 37 days towards the end of the year so that it begins on August 9 and ends on September 17.

Like most medieval writers, Theophanes was a highly superstitious and religious person, and he invoked heavenly mystic phenomena to explain and predict important events. Thus, upon mentioning the date July 20, Theophanes implies that the star configuration on this date was very unfavorable for Nicephorus, as if it was a bad omen signifying a great misfortune. Such is the most probable interpretation of his words "it was the devastating rising of the Dog" that caused "reckless bravery of the impertinent coward [Nicephorus]" and made him behave like a madman, frequently shouting challenges and then realizing that some supernatural power, "God or his enemy" (that is, the devil), pulled him against his will.[14]--Mconfoy (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I took care of this. The text now flow naturally and logically. Some of the intervening explanatory material went down in footnotes. The legend in the picture was made shorter in the same manner. It remains to repair the next section (your next comment). --Lantonov (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossing times -- how does this detail of information help the article?

See below. Once again, this level of information comes out of nowhere. This is something that can be stated in a few sentences by just listing the estimated times and referencing method used to do this. No one could possibly care reading the article about inverse relationships between the length and the speed trying to understand this campaign unless perhaps they are wargamming this. It really distracts from enjoyment and understanding of the campaign and should not be included except as a reference.

The crossing, difficult for such a multitudinous army, would inevitably occupy some time. Approximate distances and timing are listed in the opposite table. About distances, the following must be borne in mind: while distances in the passes are relatively accurate because they were measured by following the contour of the pass, total distances are underestimated by 10-30 km because level terrain was measured on a straight line, since it is impossible to guess the exact route on level ground. For the timings, one must consider a march of 25 km to be both long and tiring for men and horses, and although this rate could have been maintained as an average in some cases, terrain, weather and the quality of the roads, tracks or paths used by the army will all have played a role, so that very considerable variations must have been usual. The average length of a day's march for infantry or combined forces was probably rarely more than 19-23 km, which has been an average for most infantry forces throughout recorded history; and this figure would more often than not be reduced if very large numbers, which had to be kept together, were involved. The average can be increased when no accompanying baggage train is present, and increased yet again for forced marches, although there is an inverse relationship between the length and speed of such marches and the loss of manpower and animals through exhaustion. The speed at which large forces can move varies very considerably according to the terrain: anything between 11-13 km and 18-20 km per day. Cavalry by themselves can cover distances of up to 60-80 km, provided the horses are regularly rested and well nourished and watered. Small units can move much faster than large divisions: distances of up to 30 km per day for infantry can be attained. The average marching speeds for infantry are 4.8 km per hour on even terrain, 4 km on uneven or broken/hilly ground.[16] From the above mentioned, and taking into account that the Byzantine army was very large, one can take the lower estimate (18 km per day) as the rate of march, reducing it further to 11 km per day for march in a pass. Timings in the table are calculated on the above assumption; as seen, the march from Marcelae to Pliska could have taken 5.5 to 9 days. This defines the period of departing from Marcelae as July 11 to July 14, according to [17], or July 2 to July 5, according to [18].Mconfoy (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above criticism. Will consider putting the estimates of timings for the march in a footnote (reference) and also fusing the section "devastating rising of the Dog" in the text of another section and somewhat shortening it. Meanwhile, I provided the requested citations.

Answer to the question above: I think that this text helps the article as a guidance to the possible route of the Byzantine Army. With it, I tried to outline the grounds for the many hypotheses about the places of battles and movement of troops. It should refer to the march to Pliska (Pliska? -- because there are hypotheses and debates that the sacked town was not Pliska but maybe Preslav or even some town to the south of the Balkans such as Avli) as well as to the march from Pliska (?) and the possible place of the final battle. Some even put the battle in the Iskar Pass which is far to the east and close to Serdica (Sofia). Therefore, knowledge of geography and distances is essential for readers to make their own mind of what probably happened.

Since Theophanes, Scriptor Incertus, and Zonaras went to Wikisource, and most of the other old texts will go to Wikisource, too, another task will be a large reference restructuring and repair. These issues were put above in the templates as cleanup tasks. --Lantonov (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

I am looking for a map of the battle with Balkan passes including also Kotel and Rish passes, and Pliska. If someone has it, please help. Lantonov 06:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I found a map in the Polish wiki article on Krum. I am not very happy with it because it is too general but this is the best I could find googling. Lantonov 15:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a very interesting discussion on this battle here [1]. One of the maps given (about Krum's campaigns), is taken probably from the site of the Bulgarian Military Academy [2]. The other two maps (battles of Varbitsa Pass and Versinikia) are very nice to have in English and put here. However, I am not very good at Photoshop and map drawing and would appreciate help from someone with those skills. And the maps could not be put here "as is" because of copyright. Lantonov (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Kandi from the BG Wikipedia to make the map of the battle and he agreed to try: ) --Gligan (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it will improve the article greatly. I translated some primary sources (Theophanes, Anonymous Vaticanus) and put them in the footnotes in order to compare, discuss, and find place of this material in the body of the article. I intend to complete primary sourcing with Michael the Syrian, Skylitzes, and Zonaras. After this is done, those sources will be transferred to Wikisource. Lantonov (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the 2 maps, Kandi and Gligan. This is a big improvement. I promise to fill up details on the events in the maps, so that the reader spends time on looking in the maps and imagining the theatre of events. Lantonov (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some sources

Just a few sources for later reference. Here's the primary source bits for the death of Nikephoros:

• Joannes Zonaras, Epitome historiarum [3]
  • [02192] καὶ αὐτίκα κατὰ τῆς βασιλείου σκηνῆς ὡρµήκεσαν, καὶ ἀναιρεῖται µὲν ὁ Νικηφόρος, τὸ δ' ὅπως ἠγνόηται.
  • [02193] λέγεται δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῶν οἰκείων ἀναιρεθῆναι ἢ πρωτουργησάντων τὴν ἐκείνου σφαγὴν ἢ τῶν µὲν βαρβάρων καταρξαµένων, τῶν δὲ Ῥωµαίων ἐπεξεργασαµένων τὸν φόνον τὸν τοῦ ἀλάστορος.

• Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia [4]
  • [11067] καὶ τῇ νυκτὶ τοῦ σαββάτου τάραχοι καὶ ὄχλων ἐνόπλων περὶ Νικηφόρον καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ ἀκουόµεναι παρατάξεις πάντας ἐξενεύρωσαν, πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἡµέρας ἐπελθόντες οἱ βάρβαροι κατὰ τῆς Νικηφόρου σκηνῆς καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ µεγιστάνων ἀναιροῦσι τοῦτον οἰκτρῶς, ἐν οἷς ἦν καὶ Ἀέτιος πατρίκιος, καὶ Πέτρος πατρίκιος, καὶ Σισίννιος πατρίκιος ὁ Τριφύλλης, καὶ Θεοδόσιος πατρίκιος ὁ Σαλιβαρᾶς, ὁ πολλὰ λυπήσας καὶ κακὰ ἐνδειξάµενος τῇ µακαρίᾳ Εἰρήνῃ, καὶ ὁ ἔπαρχος πατρίκιος, καὶ Ῥωµανός, πατρίκιος καὶ στρατηγὸς τῶν ἀνατολικῶν, καὶ ἕτεροι πολλοὶ πρωτοσπαθάριοι καὶ σπαθάριοι, καὶ τῶν ταγµάτων οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅ τε τοῦ ἐκσκουβίτου δοµέστικος, καὶ ὁ δρουγγάριος τῆς βασιλικῆς βίγλας, καὶ ὁ τῆς Θρᾴκης στρατηγός, καὶ πολλοὶ ἄρχοντες τῶν θεµάτων σὺν ἀπείροις λαοῖς, πᾶσά τε ἡ τῶν Χριστιανῶν καλλονὴ διεφθάρη· [...]
  • [11074] τὸν δὲ τρόπον τῆς τούτου σφαγῆς οὐδεὶς τῶν περισωθέντων ἀκριβῶς διηγήσατο·
  • [11075] φασὶ γάρ τινες, ὅτι καὶ Χριστιανοὶ πεσόντα τοῦτον ἐπέτρωσαν.
  • [11076] οἱ δὲ γυναικώδεις τῶν ἀνδρῶν οἰκέται αὐτοῦ, οἷς καὶ συνευνάζετο, οἱ µὲν τῷ τῆς σούδας πυρί, οἱ δὲ τοῖς ξίφεσιν ὤλοντο σὺν αὐτῷ.

For later discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. As you can see in the article, Theophanes Chronographia is the most important source, which is included in the text almost entirely, the bits above too. The whole text is translated in English by myself, and put in the footnotes, but I intend to move it to Wikisource. Another important source is Anonymus Vaticanus, which is also Byzantine (in Greek), and whose translation is also here. I have also the whole text of Zonaras that I also intend to translate and put in Wikisource. If you see some error in the translations, please write here, or change it in the article. I am not very comfortable with some words, such as 'drungarius', 'escuvites', 'hikanatoi', 'heliaka', 'Mannasas', 'domesticus'. Also, not very sure if litre is 330 or 320 grams. I saw a good translation of Anonymus Vaticanus in English on Paul Stephenson's site and I asked for his permission to cite it here, but he put some restrictions (not the entire text of the source), so I decided to include only my variant of translation. Lantonov (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these were offices in the Byzantine hierarchy. Droungarios is a military rank, for instance. The passage about the "effeminate men" who used to "sleep with" the emperor I would translate as "the eunuchs in his entourage". As far as I understand, Byzantine emperors had parakoimomenous, a small number of top-confidence servants who lived close to the emperor day and night, and they were often eunuchs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to give a link to the peer review, here [5] Lantonov (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

'ὁ ἔπαρχος πατρίκιος'? 'πρωτοσπαθάριοι καὶ σπαθάριοι'? Any suggestions? Lantonov (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A Spatharios was a medium-ranked military officer, that much I remember. Patrikios was, I think, a political rank of honour, nominally corresponding to an ancient Roman "senator". The Eparchos patrikios sounds like some special role among the senators, but I'd have to investigate that further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw many of those explained in Byzantine aristocracy. Those are:

• Domestikos – the domestikoi were originally imperial guards, who became generals in the themes. They included:
  • Megas Domestikos (Grand Domestic) - the overall commander of the army.
  • Domestikos ton Scholon (Domestic of the Schools) – the commander of the Scholae, originally a number of guards units, later a Tagma. This was a very prestigious title, which held a lot of power, unlike many of the other titles.
  • Domestikos tou thematos (Domestic of the Themes) – the commander and organizer of the military themes; there was one for the European themes and one for Asian themes.
• Strategos – a military commander of a theme, who often also had the title of doux (from Dux). The term is basically equivalent to "general" or "admiral", as it was used in both branches of service
• Protospatharios – a senior officer in the imperial guard. The spatharios was his subordinate.
  • Drungarios - a naval officer as well as an army officer. A somewhat higher version of the drungarios was the drungarokomes.

and many others, not mentioned in Theophanes. Bury equates Eparchos patrikios to Prefect. I still couldn't find about ἐκσκουβίτου (probably sort of troops, as they are commanded by a domestikos. Lantonov (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC) At last I found ἐκσκουβίτου. See Excubitors. Also here [6]. Lantonov (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent removal

Before doing that at least make a discussion. You are removing content, pictures, categories, links to other wikipedias and ruining the article. If you think that there is anything copied from other work, remove only that part. --Gligan (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mhmmm now I read the discussion you had with Lantonov and if you give me the original Bulgarian text, I will tell you whether that is a direct translation. --Gligan (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret I didn't notice you restored this material, until a year later. I've had to revert back to the version from last year, to remove the plagiarised material again. There is no doubt at all the bulk of the text that had been added by Lantonov was copied or literally translated from various sources. Do not reinstate this material. I regret the loss of any intermediate good edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Pliska/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has many details, but is spoilt by an overall 'Bulgarian POV'. The battle is presented as 'valiant Bulgars vs evil Byzantine empire'. Anotherwikifan (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)