ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 31, 2008 9:18:04 GMT -5
So? I m voting for Ioan assen II.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 31, 2008 9:42:39 GMT -5
At its best, I guess. I voted for Kaloyan.
|
|
yeni
Moderator
gulash freak
Posts: 327
|
Post by yeni on Mar 31, 2008 11:27:35 GMT -5
Simeon I
|
|
|
Post by Ivanov on Mar 31, 2008 11:39:31 GMT -5
I chose between Kaloyan and Joan Asen II, and I prefer Kaloyan. Both operated in similar environment - Latin empire in Constantinople and rebeious Byzantine provinces. Kaloyan tried to keep both parties weak. He smashed the forces of the Fourth crusade, but also did the same with the Byzantine rebels. He wanted weak Latin empire as a neighbour, instead of the strong Byzantine empire. Though Joan Asen II was more successful in terms of territory expansion, economy and culture, he did a very serious mistake - He provided enormous help to the Byzantines to revive their empire. I think he should have helped the Latins. After his death the Byzantine Bulgarian rivalry was resumed and led to their end.
|
|
|
Post by Ivanov on Mar 31, 2008 12:09:41 GMT -5
I think Simeon I was a disaster. He ruined our relations with the Byzantines. After 30 years of peace strengthened by the Bulgarian convertion to Orthodox Christianity , both empires had a chance to coexist peacefully . He breached the peace and strarted a 33-year violent campaign against the Byzantines, because he had an ambition to capture Constantinople - hundreds of thousands died on the battlefields, numerous resources were wasted. He was always victorious, he sacked Constantinople twice, but in fact he achieved nothing, even in terms of territorial gains. On the other hand, he actually lost the Bulgarian lands on the other side of Danube. The Magyars took Transylvania, the Pechenegs and Russians occupied other parts, In comparisson, his father Boris I, fought several wars with the Germans to defend Transylvania, Krum and Omurtag fought successful wars against the Frank empire, others fought against the Khazars, Avars and managed to keep these lands. He gave them up without a fight, while wasting the life of thousands of soldiers in his useless battle to the South.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 31, 2008 12:32:29 GMT -5
Ivanov's opinion would probably sound like a sacrilege to most Bulgarians but he has a point. I mean Simeon was overambitious and overestimated the resources he had. He fought too many enemies and none of them was a joke. He gained some insignificant territores in the Balkans on the expence of the vast area north of Danube. This is not very often mentioned in our history, I don't know why. Still, under him Bulgarian culture flourished, this must not be forgotten.
|
|