980 years ago, the western Bulgarian lands were shaken by one of the largest uprisings in our centuries-old history. From Belgrade on the Danube (present-day Serbian capital, Bulgarian city until the 14th century) to the vicinity of Thessaloniki and the Adriatic port of Durres (present-day Durres, Albania), Byzantine power was swept away. Although only for a year, the free Bulgarian state was restored. At the head of the insurgent Bulgarians, who rejected the “Roman yoke” imposed on them only two decades ago, is Petar Delyan (1040-1041) – one of the brightest, but also mysterious personalities of our past.
We are talking about a leader with charisma and statesmanship qualities, about a person devoted to a great cause, a remarkable Bulgarian, whom we still do not appreciate in terms of dignity.
To prove his rights to the Bulgarian crown, Petar Delyan claimed that he was the son of Gavril Radomir and the grandson of Tsar Samuil.
Therefore, scholars most often look for the connection in his father’s first marriage with the Hungarian princess Margarita. For most contemporaries, however, Delyan is a “classic” impostor!
According to the Byzantine chronicler Ioan Skilitsa, he was a Bulgarian of non-aristocratic descent who, before the uprising, was a “servant” of some prince of Constantinople. The famous philosopher Michael Psel allowed himself a “play on words” – “Delian” was rather “Dolian”, which in Greek means “insidious”, “cunning” and “deceiver”… At the same time, Delian was also called “illegitimate”… According to a bishop Mikhail Devolski, the rebel leader’s arguments about his blood relationship with Gavril Radomir were “…convincingly strong”!
And yet, we cannot “100 percent” reject a possible kinship of Delyan with the Bulgarian dynasty, especially along the lines of “illegitimacy”. The family of the Comitopules was numerous. It had branches along the line not only of Samuel and Aaron. It was the same with their older brothers David and Moses and other close and distant relatives… Regardless of whether he was an imaginary or a real representative of the “royal knee”, Delyan managed to convince the Bulgarians of his rights to the throne. And he leads them in a difficult but noble struggle for liberation and a dignified life.
As it is known,
the immediate reason for the uprising was the replacement of taxes in kind with cash taxes, carried out under Emperor Michael IV of Paphlagonia (1034-1041).
Judging by archaeological research, taxes were calculated in money, but were collected again in kind. In practice, this meant an even more brutal robbery of the Bulgarian taxpayer, with corruption and arbitrariness reigning in the Byzantine administration. And yet, the reasons for the rebellion remain mostly ideological and political. The leading idea is the restoration of “their” independent Bulgarian kingdom.
Delyan turns out to be a talented organizer, who becomes an exponent of the discontent and innermost thoughts of his compatriots. He showed an undoubted strategic sense, choosing as the focus of the rebellion the most distant from the Byzantine capital, northwestern Bulgarian lands. These are Pomerania and the region of Belgrade, which were the last to fall under the rule of Basil II. The insurgent Bulgarians proclaimed their leader as king, raising him on a shield, as the ancient military ceremonial dictated. Delyan takes the name “Peter”.
Thus, the king Saint Peter (927-969) became the banner of Bulgarian independence and state tradition. This idea, raised for the first time precisely by Peter Delian, was followed by Constantine Bodin in 1072 and by Theodore-Peter (elder brother of Assen I and Kaloyan) in 1186.
Petar Delyan dragged thousands of Bulgarians into the uprising. The rebel army captured Nis and then Skopje
– the capital of the theme (province) Bulgaria, the most extensive in the conquered Bulgarian lands. Byzantine chroniclers claim that Peter Delyan did not take prisoners of war! Probably, this statement is exaggerated, but there is clearly some truth in it. As with other similar movements, the rebels were “bloodied”, which prevented possible defeatist sentiments.
The troops of the neighboring theme of Dirachion (Drace, now Durres in Albania) were sent against the insurgents. However, the Bulgarian soldiers from the local garrisons revolted in their turn, even electing “their” king – the military leader Tihomir. The resulting disunity is extremely dangerous, which is why Delyan invites Tihomir and his men to Skopje. This is how the “people’s assembly” was convened – an institution bequeathed by the old Bulgarian rulers from Pliska and Veliki Preslav. Tihomir denies the royal ancestry of his rival, to which Petar Delyan responds with a vivid speech. “One bush cannot feed two robins. Nor can a country flourish if it is ruled by two kings!” Among the assembled Bulgarians “… there was a great commotion, everyone said that they wanted only him as the only master… And the unfortunate Tihomir was killed by the exalted crowd…
The uprising quickly spread to new areas, including those with a “Roma” population
(e.g. Epirus) attracted by Delian’s moderate tax policy. Liberating the lands to the south, the Bulgarian king located his military camp at Ostrovo (modern Arnisa, Greece), dangerously close to Thessaloniki. Emperor Michael IV, who marched against the insurgents, panicked and retreated to Constantinople. The Bulgarians in his army, led by Manuel Ivacs (son of Samuil’s voivode Ivacs), went over to the side of Petar Delyan. Separate Bulgarian detachments penetrated into Thessaly and Attica, attacking the Byzantine forces in those places. The impact of the uprising in Paristrion (the Byzantine province between Stara Planina and the Danube) remains unclear. Although the Bulgarian apocryphal chronicle from the 12th century connects “king Odelyan” with cities like Cherven and Nessebar!
The process of reviving the Bulgarian kingdom takes a rapid course until an unexpected event creates complications. Alusian, the second son of Tsar Ivan Vladislav, previously a regional governor in Asia Minor, enters the scene. Unlike the case with Tihomir, this time conservatism prevailed. The “doubtful” Delyan is forced to share power with the proven, widely known king’s son. Alusianus fails in his attempt to conquer Thessalonica, then treacherously captures and blinds Peter Delianus.
In the end, Alusian commits one of the blackest betrayals in our history.
He agreed with the emperor in exchange for personal benefits and privileges, after which he left the Bulgarians who believed in him! The effect of what happened was devastating, especially in relation to the psychological resilience of the insurgents. Led by Petar Delyan, after desperate battles the uprising was put down. The rebel king was captured and most likely died in prison.
When the uprising was crushed, the Norman mercenaries in the Byzantine army, commanded by the future Norwegian king Harard Hardrade the High, “appeared”. In the medieval Scandinavian sagas, the famous Viking was called “scourge on the Bulgarians” and “destroyer of Bulgaria”! In the sagas, the image of a “blind king” who leads his faithful soldiers is measured. The last free Bulgarian cities were Prilep (today in North Macedonia), where Manuel Ivac was fortified, and Sredets (now Sofia). The ruler of today’s capital is Voivode Botko, who after a desperate resistance was defeated at Boyana.
For the propaganda in Skopje with its claims of “science”, the uprising is “Macedonian”. Even the illustrations in the local history textbooks expose yet another unceremonious lie – everywhere it says Bulgarians and that’s it! Prof. Mihailo Dinich made the witty assumption that
instead of “Delyan” the form “Odelyan” found in the Bulgarian Apocryphal Chronicle is more correct.
According to the Serbian scientist, it is a derivative of the Old Bulgarian verb “odoleti” /”I win”. That is, it is a nickname – “Winner”, equivalent to the Latin “Victor”. However, the name “Delyan” is in the other historical monuments. But it is possible that the medieval author perceived the remarkable Bulgarian from the XI century precisely in a “victorious” light! The same writer calls Peter Delyan with the ancient title “kagan”. This is another testimony to the Bulgarian nature and deep ideological roots of the liberation movement of 1040-1041.
