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.