The Tsar

Medieval political thought presented the Bulgarian tsar as an anointed ruler crowned by the will of God. Legitimate dynasties justified their authority through heavenly support, but the same language was also used by contenders from outside them: Ivaylo claimed that saints had urged him to lead the people. In visual representations, this idea appeared as a halo around the ruler’s head or as a heavenly hand offering him the crown.

The extended royal title read: “In Christ God, faithful tsar and autocrat of all Bulgarians and Greeks.” In its claims, “tsar” corresponded to the Latin “emperor” and the Greek “basileus,” while “autocrat” emphasized independent and legally unrestricted authority. International recognition, however, remained disputed. Pope Innocent III gave Kaloyan a royal crown and addressed him as rex, whereas Kaloyan styled himself emperor of the Bulgarians.

The Byzantine court long refused to place the Bulgarian tsar on the same level as the emperor in Constantinople. Only toward the end of the thirteenth century did Byzantine historians begin regularly to call Bulgarian rulers “basileus,” without accepting full equality. In 1328 Andronikos III asked Michael Shishman to acknowledge his supremacy in return for territorial concessions, but the Bulgarian ruler replied that one emperor could not submit to another. Recognition in the West came gradually: in 1291 Pope Nicholas IV called George Terter I the “glorious emperor of Bulgaria,” and the imperial title was later accepted by Venice and the Hungarian kings.

Additions to the title were political messages rather than necessarily descriptions of actual borders. The formula “tsar of Bulgarians and Greeks” had its clearest territorial basis under Ivan Asen II, but it was restored under Ivan Alexander as a link to the power of the early Asen dynasty. Ivan Alexander and Ivan Shishman also called themselves rulers “of all Bulgarians.” In the fragmented Bulgaria of the fourteenth century, this expressed Tarnovo’s claim to represent the entire Bulgarian community and rejected separatism.

The tsar was assigned three principal public roles: to bind his subjects together politically and morally, to embody the state, and to protect the Orthodox faith. To these were added the executive and legislative powers of the autocrat. Royal charters could place dependent people under the authority of boyars, churches, or monasteries; tax collectors and other officials acted in the tsar’s name. The ruler’s will had the force of law and served both to uphold the existing order and to persecute heretics and rebels.

The Christian model required the tsar to treat his subjects as his children and to be accessible, merciful, and generous toward the poor. Advice to rulers urged them to be “quick to praise and slow to punish,” while the sword entrusted to them was supposed to protect the good and restrain wrongdoers. This was a moral ideal, not a description of everyday practice. Royal justice and violence generally defended the interests of the ruling stratum and the established social hierarchy.

The ruler could be recognized by his “imperial insignia”: crown, throne, red boots, sceptre, banner, akakia, and rich ceremonial dress. On coins, seals, murals, and miniatures, the tsar almost always holds a cross in his right hand. Here the cross was not merely a sign of faith but also a symbol of authority, victory, and the invincibility of the Christian ruler.

Niketas Choniates describes how, during the uprising of 1185, Peter put on a “golden circlet” and red footwear in the Church of St Demetrius. Behind the dismissive wording probably stand an actual crown and red boots—the distinctive privileges of a sovereign. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the crown was a solid band studded with precious stones and set low on the forehead; Ivan Asen II appears with one on his coins, as does Constantine Asen in the Boyana Church. In the fourteenth century it was replaced by the hemispherical crown known from portraits of Ivan Alexander. Pearl pendants, called pendilia or препендулии, hung from its sides and were reserved for the reigning monarch.

In his left hand the tsar often held an akakia—a pouch of earth represented as a rolled piece of purple cloth. It reminded him that even a crowned ruler was mortal and that his body would return to the ground. This token of ritual humility balanced the magnificence of the other regalia and presented the tsar as an imitator of Christ’s humility.

The throne was at once a physical object, a mark of legitimate investiture, and an image of the state itself. Rulers stressed their hereditary rights by calling it the throne of their forefathers. At the end of the fourteenth century Ivan Shishman styled himself the “first-enthroned” tsar, asserting precedence over Ivan Sratsimir, the ruler of Vidin. Images show a development from an ornamented two-legged seat in the thirteenth century to a true throne with a high back, red or gold covering, and a cushion with golden tassels. After Michael Shishman’s death in 1330, the boyars also lamented his “golden throne.”

The sceptre usually ended in a cross and sometimes in a fleur-de-lis. In 1204 Kaloyan received such an emblem of authority from Pope Innocent III. The royal banner, known as a zastava or khorugva, was likewise part of the ruler’s investiture. Kaloyan’s banner combined a cross with the keys of St Peter—an image linking Christ’s victory, papal authority, and the claims of the Bulgarian ruler.

Official dress followed the Byzantine imperial model. Purple was reserved for the tsar and his family. The principal ceremonial garment was the sakkos, known in Bulgarian as the bagrenitsa or charvlenitsa—a long, narrow robe of gold-woven fabric covered with pearls and precious stones. Around the waist was the loros, a richly decorated band whose end the ruler draped over his left arm.

Court writers constructed the image of the “good tsar,” under whom the poor received protection, the rich were restrained, and the state enjoyed abundance. Rulers’ names were accompanied by strings of conventional epithets: “Christ-loving,” “Orthodox,” “pious,” “crowned by God,” “merciful,” “great,” and “autocratic.” These terms indicate above all what the ideal lord was expected to be, not the character of a particular individual. Even the claim that no one who saw Ivan Alexander returned home sorrowful belongs to the language of courtly praise.

Among the rulers of Tarnovo, Ivan Asen II came closest to this ideal in historical memory. He spent his youth in exile, and later accounts portray him as a man of noble character who did not turn his weapons against his own subjects or win notoriety by killing Romans. He was therefore respected beyond Bulgaria as well. Subsequent tsars down to Ivan Shishman readily traced their descent to the line of the celebrated Asen.

Asen I and Michael Shishman represented another type of ruler: decisive warriors valued for speed and boldness. Asen’s byname Belgun has been interpreted as “knowledgeable” or “wise,” although Byzantine writers also emphasize his severity. Michael Shishman likewise acted aggressively. When Andronikos III proposed in 1328 that they settle the dispute over southeastern Thrace by personal combat, he rejected the idea with the analogy of a smith who should grasp hot iron with tongs rather than his bare hand. For him, armies and strategy mattered more than theatrical personal courage. His death at Velbazhd in 1330 dealt a severe blow to Bulgarian ambitions for political unification.

Trials in youth could also shape a ruler’s character. Kaloyan was sent as a hostage to Constantinople in 1187; memories of his captivity have been connected with his later hostility toward Byzantium. Theodore Svetoslav spent more than five years with his mother in exile at Nicaea and then about a decade as a hostage at Nogai’s camp. There he fell into poverty and married the adopted daughter of a wealthy merchant, whose dowry later assisted him politically. After taking the throne, he displayed extreme ruthlessness. Patriarch Joachim III, who had earlier helped secure his release, was accused of ties to the Tatars and thrown from the walls of Tarnovo.

Ivan Alexander ruled for forty years, from 1331 to 1371, an unusually long reign in the unstable fourteenth century. A court description presents him as ruddy, handsome, and approachable, but also mentions his bent knees. This has been interpreted as evidence of childhood rickets, although the diagnosis remains conjectural. The ruler generously patronized monasteries and monks, granting them property, rights, and privileges. This policy combined personal piety with mutual support between the crown and ecclesiastical institutions.

The memory of Ivan Shishman is divided between critical historical judgment and popular reverence. The succession dispute with Ivan Sratsimir deepened the country’s division, while the sending of his sister Kera Tamara to Sultan Murad was regarded as a humiliating concession. Some accounts portray him seeking a reprieve from the sultan while dressed in a white shroud; other evidence points to boldness and resistance. Songs place his last battle near Sofia, while places, caves, and springs around Samokov and the Iskar Gorge bear his name. What is certain is that Bayezid I ordered his beheading at Nikopol in the summer of 1395. The difference between the historical place of his death and the geography of folklore shows how popular memory turned Shishman into a general symbol of resistance.

Not every wearer of the crown proved capable of effective government. Constantine Asen was initially praised for physical strength and judgment, but after breaking his leg he became increasingly dependent on Tsaritsa Maria and his government weakened; he was eventually killed by Ivaylo. George Terter I proved unable to halt Tatar pressure and left Tarnovo in search of Byzantine protection. His son Theodore Svetoslav later exchanged him for thirteen captive Roman dignitaries and gave him Cherven to govern. Brief reigns, foreign intervention, and the accession of the Tatar Chaka in 1299 reveal how vulnerable the throne became when central authority collapsed.

Ivaylo was an exception to the dynastic model. Only four or five years of his life are well documented, but in that time he led a mass movement, defeated foreign enemies, and attained the imperial throne. Visions of saints gave him the era’s customary language of heavenly legitimacy even though he came from outside the aristocracy. His career cannot be explained merely as the adventure of a fortunate pretender: it expressed aspirations for social justice and the protection of the population. Constant warfare and the brevity of his reign left him no time to carry out lasting reforms.