Talk:Croatian–Bulgarian battle of 926

"Date"

The byzantine king died at 27th of maj 927.......this can not be the same date as the battle. This article is laughable, i am not even going to comment on the size of Tomislavs force because that is just a blatant lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.204.164 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok - are you guys seriously going to leave an article which claims that the chieftain of a small state on the Balkans raised an army of 100,000 foot and 60,000 cavalry? Does anyone who has read a speck of history think that makes sense? You might put that he had giant robots as well. And the bulgarians were actually 500,000 when he defeated them.

-- No, I wasn't there. So how do I know there weren't any giant robots either?? Claiming 60,00 cavalry is proposterous even in Napoleonic times. For example a Roman legion is only about 6,000 people. With an army like that Croatia should have ruled Europe, and not disappeared from the map as an independent state for most of the medieval ages.

"Dissapearance"

Well i dont know if you're the same person but the word disappear seems very wrong. After the defeat at Petar's Hill to King Colomon (which ended the Croats' greatest age) Croatia was existed. It didnt disappear but went into a union with Hungary, Hapsburgs , and then Yugoslavia. It doesnt mean our nation went off the map, its contributions were still greatly recognised even by Pope Leo as defenders of Christendom, in the many Ottoman wars the Croats took part in but Hungary took most of the credit for. (See military history of Croatia)

-- Fair enough - the term "disappear" is not entirely valid. But with an army of 160 000 one would expect Croatia to annex Hungary (not the other way round). I understand you want to believe in the great history of your nation, and no one denies that the Croats did defeat the army of Simeon. But making this look like the biggest battle of the Medieval Ages is entirely erroneous, because it simply was not (no one else claims an army of remotely the same size anywhere else for any other battle in Medieval Europe). As for the robots - believe me it is not more idiotic than the claim you are making if you just read a book on European History. Now, I would like to find out more about Croat history - but the real one, not the one you want to believe it had been.

The size of the army is not claimed by the user above, but by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Since he was a Byzantine and therefore a friend of Croatia, his data are probably not NPOV, but we can hardly blame him for it, can't we? I did put in "probably overestimated" here and there. Preslav 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the term "Dissapearance" is just perfect, because after the Hungarian annexation of Croatia in 1102AD Croats never had any role, even the smallest one in the history of Europe following almost 1000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.17.90 (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that if the numbers are accurate (which, of course, is absolutely false), we would have to ask ourselves why wasn't Simeon leading the battle! He was leading his army at Anchialus in 917, where a "smaller" Byzantine army fought them. If the Croats were such a bigger threat, why wasn't he there? Not to mention that the Bulgarian army was "probably of nearly the same size". After the real big battle at Anchialus and its casualties, could the Bulgarian state muster around 150 000 people? I doubt it, as much as I'd like it to be. These numbers are most obviously over-exaggerated by Constantine Porphyrogenitus and that should be well noted in the article. Removing a zero would make much more sense for the eventually approximately real numbers. Otherwise, it would be like the battle of the Termopilae - from ~200 000 Persians and more than 1000 Greeks to ~2 000 000 Persians and 300 Spartans... By Nike, 15:09, 27th of July 2006

Simeon I and the battle

He died on 27 May 927, but according to my sources, this happened during his last siege of Constantinople, and the battle with the Croatians is supposed to have been past. From what I know, after the battle Tomislav broke his union with the Byzantines and made peace with Bulgaria, a news brought to Preslav by two legates of Pope John X. Simeon gained two things from this peace — a recogniction of his title of Tsar (Emperor) and the proclamation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church for an autocephalous patriarchate. With the Catholic West on his side, Simeon prepared for the decisive siege of Constantinople, but died.

Now, according to this article, the battle actually happened on 27 May 927, suggesting Simeon's heart attack has something to do with it. This is impossible in practice, since he was in Preslav then, and one can't ride from Bosnia to Preslav in the same day. But in the Events preceding the war section, the article says there were negotiations regarding the proclamation of the head of the Bulgarian Church for a patriarch, and they finished during Simeon's reign, in 928.

Also, I removed a passage that suggests the Bulgarian army had no cavalry. Actually, the Bulgars had only cavalry, they were well-known for it as Eurasian nomads. The Bulgarian infantry were the Slavs.

This article was (and still is) quite POV and very likely factually inaccurate at that. Todor→Bozhinov 12:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Army size

Once for all army size should be explained.

The article stated that "According to Byzantine historian Constantine Porphyrogenitus, King Tomislav had an army of 160,000 soldiers"

That is not truth.

In the chapter 31. of the De Administrando Imperio, Constantine VII mention that Croatia musters as many as 60 thousand horse and 100 thousand foot and that this huge power Croatia possessed until the time of prince Krasimer.

Constantine VII didn't say that this huge army ever exist in any battle, he only mention that Croatia was able to recruit that huge army and he didn't mention Tomislav at all (De Administrando Imperio was written just 20 years after the battle). Kresimir was ruled between 935 - 945 and the battle was in 927.

Don't you all know that history in the Balkans is not written or based on historical facts, but on the backbone nationalist ideologies of dictators that happen to be in power at the time, and to serve their purpose, which mainly results in war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.169.172 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is a very old comment, but the user forgot to bold the word until, so Croatia, according to De Administrando Imperio, had that army UNTIL Krešimir I ("until the time of prince Krasimer"), including the time before him and including 926/927. Tezwoo (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing and name

This article is unsourced and the history of the Balkans and the Slavic peoples at Wikipedia cannot be trusted without the most scrupulous sourcing of the best of twenty-first-century scholarship. Also, the name of the article appears to have been a Wikipedian's invention. That's not kosher, so I've changed it to a description of the the contents. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Croatian-Bulgarian War" seems to be more appropriate name, given the current state of the article.--130.204.61.229 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Name

"Battle of the Bosnian Highlands" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME [1][2]. Also, the date of the battle is not universally accepted to be 926. Tezwoo (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)