Tsar Petŭr I and Bulgaria: Some Critical Observations
Tsar Petŭr I and Bulgaria: Some Critical Observations

Summary/Abstract: In Bulgarian historiography, early medieval Bulgaria under Tsar Petŭr I has long been portrayed as a state in decline, ruled by a weak monarch submissive to Byzantine influence, plagued by military and economic exhaustion caused by the wars of his father and predecessor on the throne, Simeon, and wracked by intense political and social tensions, which ultimately led to the fall of eastern Bulgaria first to the Kievan Rus’ (969) and then to the Byzantines (971). This dismal picture of Bulgarian under Petŭr can be seriously questioned since there exists scant source documentation supporting such an assessment. Beyond a few specific events for which there are extant written source evidence, very little factually is known about Petŭr’s four-decade-long reign except for its opening and closing years. All the bleak portrayals largely are based on negative interpretive hypotheses that, over time, have gained acceptance as truth. While such postulates may reflect actual developments, it is just as likely that they do not because no concrete evidence exists supporting contentions of Bulgaria’s military, economic, political, and social decline during the period. Given the paucity of documentation and the prevalent conception of “decline” that underlay past interpretive approaches toward post-Simeon Bulgaria, this article critically examines those events during Petŭr’s reign that are supported by extant evidence, as well as some of the undocumented assertions, to discern whether the traditional hypotheses are borne out or reasonably can be questioned.Examined are: The actions surrounding the 927 treaty between Bulgaria and Byzantium and the official recognition of Petŭr’s imperial title; the marriage of Petŭr and the Byzantine imperial princess Maria Lekapena; the rebellions by two of Petŭr’s brothers soon after the treaty was signed; the loss of Raškan Serbia a few years later; a series of Magyar and Pecheneg raids; and the emergence of the Bogomil heresy. In all cases, concrete evidence supporting the traditional perspectives is found lacking and alternative postulates are possible, especially regarding military and economic aspects as well as Bogomilism. The conclusion is that Tsar Petŭr probably was far more effectual as a ruler than previously thought and that Bulgaria under his rule actually may have experienced its “Golden Age.”

• Details
• Contents