The government of towns and provinces

Governors with general competence were not a single, clearly defined office but a group of officials entrusted with the overall administration of a territory or settlement. Unlike officers with specialized duties, they represented local government as a whole, although military, fiscal, and urban responsibilities were not always concentrated in the same hands. The surviving evidence is sparse and provides neither a complete map of the provinces nor a continuous list of their governors.

The principal evidence comes from royal charters, inscriptions, papal correspondence, and Byzantine or Western narratives. Territorial terminology was inconsistent: the words chora, “land,” “country,” oblast, and “boundary” or predel all occur. Some could denote an administrative unit, an entire state, a geographical region, or simply the countryside outside a town. The appearance of one of these terms in a document therefore does not necessarily prove the existence of a precisely defined institution.

The most frequently discussed term is chora, borrowed from Greek χώρα, meaning “land,” “country,” or “region.” The Dubrovnik Charter issued by Ivan Asen II uses it both for an entire state and for individual parts of the Bulgarian realm. The Virgin Charter, attributed to Constantine Asen, refers to several chorai and towns, but it is a later forgery related to the Serbian charter issued by Stefan Uroš II Milutin in 1300. Ivan Alexander’s Mraka Charter likewise employs chora in both its general and regional senses. Byzantine historians called Tsar Peter’s lands around Preslav “Peter’s chora.”

In Byzantium, χώρα entered administrative usage as the older theme system weakened. It appeared alongside ordinary words such as τόπος, γῆ, and ἐπαρχία, without consistent legal distinctions between them. The Bulgarian state restored in the late twelfth century adopted an already existing Byzantine practice rather than undergoing the same internal transition. The uncertainty of Bulgarian terminology thus reflects, in part, the unsettled provincial vocabulary of Byzantium itself.

The word “land” may also have had an administrative meaning. In the Dubrovnik Charter, the “Albanian Land” is listed alongside the chorai but is named after its population rather than its principal town. Michael II Asen’s treaty with Dubrovnik distinguishes the singular “land,” meaning the state as a whole, from the plural “lands” belonging to the tsar and to the sebastokrator Peter. This permits the interpretation that such lands were large provinces or dominions, perhaps especially common in newly annexed and ethnically distinct regions. It cannot be demonstrated, however, that their status differed from that of the chorai.

The other designations are even less certain. “Country” or strana is a Slavonic translation of χώρα, but a damaged passage in the Vatopedi Charter does not establish whether it denoted a district around Serres. Oblast, probably a calque of Greek ἐπαρχία, is applied to Prilep and Polog in the Virgin Charter; the text’s close dependence on Milutin’s Serbian model makes its use in Bulgarian administration doubtful. In his Life of St John of Rila, Patriarch Euthymios placed Skrino within the “boundary of Sredets.” Because the village lies at a considerable distance from Sredets, the phrase may reflect a large administrative or ecclesiastical territory in Euthymios’s own time, but this remains conjectural.

The surviving names permit the reconstruction of a network of large provinces, although their boundaries cannot be fixed precisely. Chora, land, and oblast were probably units of approximately equal rank rather than successive levels in a strict hierarchy. Their different names may have depended on local tradition, the circumstances of annexation, or the ethnic composition of a region. Proposed boundaries are generally inferred from principal towns, natural barriers, and the later possessions of regional rulers.

The principal centres in the northwestern territories were Vidin, Belgrade, and Braničevo. The Dubrovnik Charter mentions them, although it does not explicitly call each one the centre of a chora. Vidin gradually became the leading political centre of northwestern Bulgaria and later served as the residence of Jacob Svetoslav, Shishman, Michael Shishman, and Ivan Sratsimir. Its province probably extended to the Danube and into lands north of the river, to the Balkan Mountains in the south, and approximately to the Iskar or Vit in the east. The Belgrade and Braničevo regions were less stable because of prolonged rivalry between Bulgaria, Hungary, and later Serbia.

In the western and southwestern possessions, the chorai of Skopje, Prilep, and Devol and the Albanian Land are either directly attested or can be reconstructed. The chora of Skopje probably included northern Macedonia and parts of the Vardar valley. Prilep covered areas of western Macedonia and may have included Ohrid, for which there is no secure evidence as a separate administrative centre. The Albanian Land, probably centred on Dyrrachion, encompassed much of the Albanian region, while the chora of Devol lay between it, the Adriatic, Epiros, and Prilep. These southwestern territories remained under Bulgarian rule only briefly, but their inclusion in Ivan Asen II’s charter indicates an attempt to incorporate them into a functioning provincial system.

Melnik probably headed a large province in eastern Macedonia, although its official name has not survived. The Melnik–Strumitsa–Prosek region had formed the power base of Dobromir Chrysos, the sebastokrator Strez, and the despot Alexios Slav, and it entered Ivan Asen II’s state after the victory at Klokotnitsa. Later evidence indicates that Serres could also be subordinate to the governor of Melnik. The province of Sredets is less directly attested, but the city’s strategic position and the mention of a kephale of Sredets in the fourteenth century suggest a large territory between the Balkan Mountains, Rila, northern Macedonia, Sredna Gora, and Thrace.

In northern Thrace, the Dubrovnik Charter names the chorai of Kran and Borui. Kran probably governed lands east of the Sredets region, and the district later became a base for semi-independent rulers such as the despot Eltimir. The chora of Borui occupied the eastern Upper Thracian plain. Recurrent warfare between Bulgaria and Byzantium in this zone impeded the formation of a durable administrative tradition and probably led to repeated changes of local governors.

The eastern parts of the empire included the chora of Preslav, also called Peter’s chora, and that of Karvuna. The former developed from the lands granted to Tsar Peter around the old capital; it appears to have remained more closely dependent on Tarnovo and did not become a lasting separate principality. The chora of Karvuna covered Dobruja, although its southern boundary and the place of Varna within it are uncertain. An independent polity arose there in the fourteenth century and was later described as the “third Bulgaria.” The district of “Tarnovo and all Zagore” was probably a capital region with a special regime, comparable in rank and size to the chorai but not necessarily organized in the same way.

Several major towns do not fit easily into this reconstruction. Philippopolis was almost certainly a provincial centre during at least part of the period, despite its absence from the list in the Dubrovnik Charter. A similar role is possible for the major Black Sea towns, while the position of Lovech in the thirteenth century remains unclear. Adrianople and Didymoteichon were held by the Tarnovo tsars only briefly, and Thessalonike never became part of the empire; their appearance in a commercial document therefore does not demonstrate that they were Bulgarian administrative centres.

Provincial government changed during the fourteenth century, following reforms introduced earlier in Byzantium. The new Byzantine unit was called a katepanikion and was governed by a kephale—literally a “head,” meaning a local governor. Bulgarian sources do not preserve the word katepanikion, while older designations such as chora and oblast continued in use. The Vitosha Charter attests a kephale of Sredets but gives neither his name nor the size and internal organization of his jurisdiction.

Among known provincial offices, the voivode appears to have held the highest rank. The title combined military and governmental significance and occurs throughout the period, perhaps especially in regions of particular strategic importance. In the thirteenth century, the usual regional or urban governor seems to have been the doux, an office borrowed from Byzantium. During the first half of the fourteenth century, the doux was gradually displaced by the kephale. The two offices were similar but should not be treated merely as the formal and popular names of a single institution. The voivode ranked above both, although it is unclear whether doukes and kephalai were directly subordinate to him or governed a different type of territory.

Neither the župan nor the ban can securely be included in Bulgarian provincial administration. Župas appear only in the forged Virgin Charter and were probably copied from its Serbian model. The late account of Župan Bogdan does not prove that such an office existed under the Second Bulgarian Empire. An Ottoman reference to Ban Yanuka is likewise insufficient to establish the ban as a Bulgarian provincial governor.

Several individuals are known as local rulers or administrators even though the sources do not give the precise names of their offices. A Western account from the time of the Third Crusade mentions an unnamed “župan or satrap of Bulgaria,” but it is uncertain whether he was a Bulgarian official, a Byzantine representative, or a local magnate. The case of Belota, who held or governed an important position in the northwestern territories under Kaloyan, is more secure. His correspondence with Pope Innocent III places him alongside the tsar and Archbishop Basil of Tarnovo. His confident tone may indicate that he was a powerful local lord, but it does not prove that he acted independently of the state.

Under Kaloyan, Prosek and the surrounding Bulgarian lands in Macedonia were entrusted to Epismen, whose name is also transmitted as Etzismenos. His exact office is unknown, and he cannot have been a kephale because that institution had not yet taken shape. He commanded substantial forces and, during the absence of Boniface of Montferrat, captured almost all of Thessalonike except its citadel before withdrawing. This indicates that the governor of Prosek had authority over a wider Macedonian territory rather than merely responsibility for a fortress, perhaps covering much of the former domain of Dobromir Chrysos.

During Boril’s reign, Melnik likewise had an influential Bulgarian governor, described in an Old French narrative by the word “bailli.” This is a Western rendering of his position rather than the Bulgarian name of his office. During the siege of Serres, the local inhabitants were prepared to surrender the town to the governor of Melnik, showing that his authority extended beyond Melnik itself. His exact title remains unknown, but his functions correspond to those of a provincial governor with broad military and political competence.

The clearest example of internal subordination within a province comes from Melnik and Serres. Dragota resided at Melnik but was also responsible for the defence of Serres before going over to John III Doukas Vatatzes and later opposing the Nicaeans. At the same time, Nikola Litoev was described as the commander of the fortress of Melnik. Dragota therefore probably governed the wider province, while Nikola headed its principal town or garrison. It is unknown whether Nikola possessed full urban authority or only military command, and the official names of both posts have not survived.

The Stenimachos inscription attests another local governor, the sebastos Alexios. Sebastos was an honorific title and does not identify the office he held. He was placed in charge of the fortress of Stenimachos following the expansion of the state under Ivan Asen II. A Byzantine account of the organization of the newly conquered towns after Klokotnitsa mentions soldiers, strategoi, and fiscal collectors, indicating both military and financial restructuring. The proximity of Stenimachos to Philippopolis makes it unlikely that Alexios governed a large chora; he more probably commanded the fortress and a limited surrounding district.

The provincial administration of the Second Bulgarian Empire was therefore multi-level but not fully uniform. Large regions were governed by voivodes, doukes, kephalai, or dignitaries whose official positions are unknown, while subordinate urban and fortress commanders could operate within them. The system combined Byzantine concepts with local circumstances, changed as territories were conquered or lost, and permitted powerful regional lords to emerge in frontier districts. The evidence reveals no single reform or formal abolition of the older offices; instead, they were gradually transformed until the end of medieval Bulgarian statehood in the fourteenth century.

Governors with general powers were not one fixed office. They were a group of officials who handled the overall running of a territory or settlement. Unlike officials with one specific task, they stood for local government as a whole. Even so, military, tax, and town duties were not always held by the same person. The evidence that survives is thin. It does not give a full map of the provinces, or a complete list of their governors.

The main evidence comes from royal charters, inscriptions, papal letters, and Byzantine or Western narratives. The words used for territory were not consistent. Sources use chora, “land,” “country,” oblast, and “boundary” or predel. These words could mean an administrative district, a whole state, a geographic area, or simply the countryside outside a town. So the use of one of these words in a text does not by itself prove that a precise institution existed.

The most discussed term is chora, taken from the Greek χώρα, meaning “land,” “country,” or “region.” The Dubrovnik Charter issued by Ivan Asen II uses it both for the whole state and for separate parts of the Bulgarian realm. The Virgin Charter, said to be by Constantine Asen, refers to several chorai and towns, but it is a later forgery connected with the Serbian charter issued by Stefan Uroš II Milutin in 1300. Ivan Alexander’s Mraka Charter also uses chora in both a broad and a regional sense. Byzantine writers called the lands of Tsar Peter around Preslav “Peter’s chora.”

In Byzantium, χώρα came into administrative use as the older theme system weakened. It appeared alongside everyday words such as τόπος, γῆ, and ἐπαρχία, with no clear legal difference between them. The Bulgarian state restored in the late twelfth century did not go through the same internal change. Instead, it took over an already existing Byzantine practice. The uncertainty in Bulgarian terms therefore partly reflects the unclear provincial vocabulary of Byzantium itself.

The word “land” may also have had an administrative meaning. In the Dubrovnik Charter, the “Albanian Land” is listed together with the chorai, but it is named after its people rather than its main town. Michael II Asen’s treaty with Dubrovnik distinguishes the singular “land,” meaning the state as a whole, from the plural “lands” belonging to the tsar and to the sebastokrator Peter. This makes it possible to think of such lands as large provinces or dominions, perhaps especially in newly taken and ethnically different areas. But it cannot be shown that their status was different from that of the chorai.

The other terms are even less certain. “Country,” or strana, is a Slavonic translation of χώρα, but a damaged passage in the Vatopedi Charter does not prove that it meant a district around Serres. Oblast, probably a translation of the Greek ἐπαρχία, is used for Prilep and Polog in the Virgin Charter; because that text closely follows Milutin’s Serbian model, its value for Bulgarian administration is doubtful. In his Life of St John of Rila, Patriarch Euthymios placed Skrino within the “boundary of Sredets.” Since the village lies far from Sredets, this phrase may point to a large administrative or church district in Euthymios’s own time, but that remains only a guess.

The surviving place-names make it possible to reconstruct a network of large provinces, even if their borders cannot be fixed exactly. Chora, land, and oblast were probably equal in rank, not stages in a strict hierarchy. Their different names may have depended on local custom, the way a region was added to the state, or its ethnic make-up. The boundaries that scholars suggest are usually based on the main towns, natural borders, and the later lands of regional rulers.

The main centres in the northwest were Vidin, Belgrade, and Braničevo. The Dubrovnik Charter mentions them, although it does not directly say that each was the centre of a chora. Vidin gradually became the leading political centre of northwestern Bulgaria and later served as the residence of Jacob Svetoslav, Shishman, Michael Shishman, and Ivan Sratsimir. Its province probably reached the Danube and land north of the river, the Balkan Mountains in the south, and roughly the Iskar or Vit in the east. The Belgrade and Braničevo regions were less stable because Bulgaria, Hungary, and later Serbia fought over them for a long time.

In the western and southwestern lands, the chorai of Skopje, Prilep, and Devol and the Albanian Land are either directly named or can be reconstructed. The chora of Skopje probably included northern Macedonia and parts of the Vardar valley. Prilep covered parts of western Macedonia and may also have included Ohrid, for which there is no sure evidence as a separate center of administration. The Albanian Land, probably centered on Dyrrachion, covered much of the Albanian region, while the chora of Devol lay between it, the Adriatic, Epiros, and Prilep. These southwestern areas stayed under Bulgarian rule only for a short time, but their appearance in Ivan Asen II’s charter shows an effort to bring them into a working provincial system.

Melnik probably headed a large province in eastern Macedonia, although its official name has not survived. The Melnik–Strumitsa–Prosek region had been the power base of Dobromir Chrysos, the sebastokrator Strez, and the despot Alexios Slav, and it came into Ivan Asen II’s state after the victory at Klokotnitsa. Later evidence shows that Serres could also be subordinate to the governor of Melnik. The province of Sredets is less directly attested, but the city’s strategic position, along with the mention of a kephale of Sredets in the fourteenth century, points to a large territory between the Balkan Mountains, Rila, northern Macedonia, Sredna Gora, and Thrace.

In northern Thrace, the Dubrovnik Charter names the chorai of Kran and Borui. Kran probably ruled lands east of the Sredets region, and the district later became a base for semi-independent rulers such as the despot Eltimir. The chora of Borui covered the eastern Upper Thracian plain. Repeated warfare between Bulgaria and Byzantium in this area made it hard to build a lasting administrative tradition and probably caused frequent changes in local governors.

The eastern parts of the empire included the chora of Preslav, also called Peter’s chora, and the chora of Karvuna. The first grew out of the lands granted to Tsar Peter around the old capital. It seems to have stayed more closely tied to Tarnovo and did not become a lasting separate principality. The chora of Karvuna covered Dobruja, although its southern edge and Varna’s place within it are uncertain. In the fourteenth century, an independent state formed there and was later called the “third Bulgaria.” The district of “Tarnovo and all Zagore” was probably a capital area with a special status, comparable in rank and size to the chorai, though not necessarily organized in the same way.

Several important towns do not fit neatly into this picture. Philippopolis was almost certainly a provincial center for at least part of the period, even though it is not listed in the Dubrovnik Charter. The same may be true of the main Black Sea towns. Lovech in the thirteenth century is still unclear. Adrianople and Didymoteichon were held by the Tarnovo tsars only briefly, and Thessalonike never became part of the empire. So their appearance in a trade document does not prove that they were Bulgarian administrative centers.

Provincial government changed during the fourteenth century, following reforms that had already begun in Byzantium. The new Byzantine district was called a katepanikion, and it was governed by a kephale, literally a “head,” meaning a local governor. Bulgarian sources do not use the word katepanikion, while older terms such as chora and oblast continued. The Vitosha Charter mentions a kephale of Sredets, but it does not name him or explain the size or inner structure of his district.

Among the known provincial offices, the voivode seems to have held the highest rank. This title had both military and governing meaning, and it appears throughout the period, perhaps especially in places of special strategic importance. In the thirteenth century, the usual regional or town governor seems to have been the doux, a title taken from Byzantium. In the first half of the fourteenth century, the doux was gradually replaced by the kephale. The two offices were alike, but they should not be treated simply as formal and popular names for the same post. The voivode ranked above both, although it is not clear whether doukes and kephalai were directly under him or governed a different kind of territory.

Neither the župan nor the ban can be safely included in Bulgarian provincial administration. Župas appear only in the forged Virgin Charter, and they were probably copied from its Serbian model. The late account of Župan Bogdan does not prove that such an office existed in the Second Bulgarian Empire. An Ottoman reference to Ban Yanuka is also not enough to show that the ban was a Bulgarian provincial governor.

Several people are known as local rulers or administrators even though the sources do not name their exact offices. A Western account from the time of the Third Crusade mentions an unnamed “župan or satrap of Bulgaria,” but it is not clear whether he was a Bulgarian official, a Byzantine representative, or a local magnate. Belota is a firmer case. He held or governed an important post in the northwestern territories under Kaloyan. His letters with Pope Innocent III place him beside the tsar and Archbishop Basil of Tarnovo. His confident tone may suggest that he was a powerful local lord, but it does not prove that he acted outside the state.

Under Kaloyan, Prosek and the nearby Bulgarian lands in Macedonia were placed under Epismen, also written Etzismenos. His exact office is unknown, and he could not have been a kephale, since that office had not yet developed. He led substantial forces and, while Boniface of Montferrat was away, captured almost all of Thessalonike except the citadel before withdrawing. This suggests that the governor of Prosek controlled a wider Macedonian region, not just a fortress, and perhaps much of the old domain of Dobromir Chrysos.

During Boril’s reign, Melnik also had an important Bulgarian governor, described in an Old French narrative with the word “bailli.” That is a Western translation of his role, not the Bulgarian name of the office. During the siege of Serres, the local people were ready to surrender the town to the governor of Melnik, which shows that his authority reached beyond Melnik itself. His exact title is unknown, but his duties were those of a provincial governor with broad military and political power.

The clearest example of one office standing under another within a province comes from Melnik and Serres. Dragota lived at Melnik but was also responsible for the defense of Serres before he switched to John III Doukas Vatatzes and later opposed the Nicaeans. At the same time, Nikola Litoev was described as the commander of the fortress of Melnik. Dragota probably governed the wider province, while Nikola headed the main town or garrison. It is not known whether Nikola had full control of the town or only military command, and the official names of both posts have not survived.

The Stenimachos inscription names another local governor, the sebastos Alexios. Sebastos was only an honor title, so it does not tell us what office he held. He was put in charge of the fortress of Stenimachos after the state expanded under Ivan Asen II. A Byzantine account of how the newly conquered towns were organized after Klokotnitsa mentions soldiers, strategoi, and tax collectors, which shows both military and financial reorganization. Since Stenimachos was close to Philippopolis, Alexios is unlikely to have governed a large chora; he more likely commanded the fortress and a limited surrounding district.

The provincial government of the Second Bulgarian Empire was therefore layered, but not fully uniform. Large regions were ruled by voivodes, doukes, kephalai, or by nobles whose exact titles are unknown, while subordinate town and fortress commanders worked under them. The system mixed Byzantine ideas with local conditions, changed as land was gained or lost, and allowed powerful regional lords to rise in border areas. The evidence does not show a single reform or a formal end to the older offices. Instead, they changed slowly until the end of medieval Bulgarian statehood in the fourteenth century.

The Second Bulgarian Empire did not have one clear system of provinces. Kings and writers used different words for large regions, like “land,” “country,” or “boundary,” and these words did not always mean the same thing. The records are few, so historians can only partly rebuild how the country was run.

Still, some big regions are known. They included Vidin, Belgrade, Braničevo, Skopje, Prilep, Melnik, Sredets, Preslav, and Karvuna. Vidin became the main center in the northwest. Melnik, Sredets, and Skopje were important in the west and south. Karvuna covered much of Dobruja. Many of these areas changed hands often because of war with Byzantium, Hungary, and Serbia.

Local rule also changed over time. In the 1200s, a region was usually led by a high official with both military and government power. By the 1300s, many places were run by a new kind of local governor, and fortress commanders worked under them. This was not a perfectly fixed system. It mixed Bulgarian and Byzantine ways and kept changing as the empire won and lost land.

Some local rulers are known by name, like Belota in the northwest, Epismen in Prosek under Kaloyan, and Dragota and Nikola in Melnik. The whole system mattered because it helped the Bulgarian rulers control large and often troubled frontier lands until the end of medieval Bulgaria in the 1300s.