Talk:Krum

message: I think that the role of Krum as the first Bulgarian legislator is too neglected. The legacy part should be enlarget or a subtitles called " internal policy" or somewhat should be made. A list of the laws should be published.It can also include the Avar legend.According to it after coquering the Avars Khan Krum asked some of the prisoners-of-law about the reasons for the fall of their state and their answers gave him the idea for creating laws,common for Bulgars and Slavs.Also Krum is the first to admisnistrate the Bulgarian state,dividing it into ten comitopuli.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitosha (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: What language did he speak? Was his language already Slavic?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.62.100 (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language? 

message: What does this mean?  "from after 796/ before 803 to 814"  Someone who knows about this may want to edit!  Isoxyl 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will explain that: In 796 his predecessor Kardam was last mentioned and in 803 there were the first records of Krum. This is why the historians argue for the exact year of Krum's succession to the throne, but it is usually accepted the years 802 or 803. My own opinion is 803. If you want to, I may correct it and write 803. --Gligan 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: I also found the article somewhat confusing. There is very little context or preface before we jump right into the action. Also, there isn't even a link to the Battle of Pliska. Odd. Hu Gadarn 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: I concur with te removal of the "Krum today" section (as per the query from an unregistered user). This material has no value here. Hu Gadarn 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krum today 

message: I delete some of it. I'm sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  crap 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: "Krum was described and potrayed by the Byzantine chronists as a light-hairеd man with light eyes, especially taking into consideration that there is no evidence for the existence of blond people on the Balkans till the arrival of the Slavs."
What kind of nonsense is this?  No body knows whether people were blond or not specifically, so how can you say that all Balkan people are brunettes.  In addition ancient Greek texts describe the Thracians as being typical Europeans, a mixture of brunettes, blonds, and redheads.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.10.82 (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family History 

message: This: "a light-hairеd man with light eyes, especially taking into consideration that there is no evidence for the existence of blond people on the Balkans till the arrival of the Slavs."
is a racist or a rather ethnic discriminatory remark, showing little knowledge and understanding
of what migration and the shape of an ethnic group or a nation are. All Slavs are not blond, just like
all other type of Caucasians are not brunettes. Also, this sounds like the Turkic theory of the origin of the Bulgars that is very dubious in in itself, not to mention the fact that Turks too were a good mixture of everything. I am about to remove this part in a few days unless someone has something reasonable to say about it. I find it insulting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.42.158 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blond and light-eyed inhabitants on the Balkans 

message: According to the article, both scholars mention the battle between Krum and Nikephorus' forces that their description bring us the question, "how shall local and Western sources be treated ?" --- Ktsquare (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Varbitsa_Pass]] mention a source by [[Vasil Zlatarski]] and [[Steven Runciman]] 

message: How reliable is Michael the Syrian? The article seems to regard Nikephoros I as a war criminal but Krum as a hero. The by no means squeamish Warren Treadgold doesn't mention any particular atrocities committed by either party. He does mention sacking on both sides and he does say that the garrison at Pliska was slaughtered, but that isn't really of note - Krum himself butchered people as he found necessary. There is no mention of calculated brutality. But it looks like this article, like so many others, has become the victim of nationalism. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip. I added the slaughter at Serdica to the article to be fair to both sides. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Should we make a bet about when the first nationalist undoes this change? :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article seems to be a bit lopsided 

message: Has this cited source been accepted by anyone other than Turks? I don't know Turkish, but doesn't he say that names like Malamir and Presian are also Turkish?
Belleten, Volume 52, Issue 203 5.53.249.34 (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of his name