Creation and expansion of pagan Bulgaria VII-IXc.

Originally posted by Menumorut Not. If the Byzantines were calling him Bulgarian is explainable, is due to the fact Byzantines were remembering that this was the continuator of the Bulgar empire. If the Westerners were calling Kaloyan Wallacian is due to the fact he was Vlach, is not possbile to be Bulgarian speaking and they to call him Wallacian.

One can find more explanations. For example they were half Bulgarians, half Vlachs. Or they were Bulgarians from an area inhabited majorly by Vlachs, hence the mistake. Or because they all cite one source where there was a mistake. Or because they (chronicers) read this "Tzar Bulgaram i Vlacham" in  signatures and decided that they were Vlachs. etc. etc. etc.

I do not agree with Curta. There is basically no source describing nationality of Assenides. This Choniates'  "ruller of  Vlachs and most part of Bulgarians" does not describe the nationality of the king but nationality of people this king ruled.

Actually Choniates makes clear references on the ethnicity of Asen brothers. On the Vlach revolt he mentions them as "barbarians from Haemus mountains, earlier called Mysians and now called Vlachs" (aproximative quote) while later in the same narrative he explicitely mentions the two brothers of being from the same ethnicity. 

On the other hand, this "Mysoi" confuses again. Bulgarians many times were called Mysoi by Byzantine chronicles. Here is also some arguments made by Zlatarski (cited from wiki):

Edited by Anton - 19-Aug-2007 at 08:38

Anton,

Edited by Chilbudios - 19-Aug-2007 at 09:11

Originally posted by Chilbudios Anton,   Don't take it personally, but it puzzles me how one can quote indiscriminately from Wikipedia articles or various Internet sites but doesn't trust recent scholarship, and I might add trustworthy (from a reputable, scholarly publishing house; also check a review on his book, - though doesn't give much details on the chapter in question it doesn't say anything which could lead the reader to believe the book or the author are biased - http://name.umdl.umich.edu/baj9928.0705.016).

The inscription that I cited (I cited part of part of it) was written by Asen's son himself.  Once again with translation -- "Me, Ioann-Asen, believing in God, son of Old Asen, Tzar of Bulgars created this...".

Edited by Anton - 19-Aug-2007 at 11:05

Anton, you're not reading what I'm writing and I'm not in the mood to fight straw men.  I said that Zlatarski knew Choniates but he chose other interpretation than the blunt reading of the passage (that Peter and Asen were Vlachs), V�s�ry said the same thing, moreover on the same page (p. 37) he presents Zlatarski's theory, that Asens were some "Bulgarized" Cumans. Anything else but Vlachs!

It's interesting to point how Kaloyan view himself (and was seen by his contemporaries). Here are some citations from his correspondence with pope Innocentius III (from Gesta Innocentii III papae, written 1208 and Regesta Vaticana)
The Kaloyan's answer to the Innocentius III letter
A letter from Kaloyan, ruler of the bulgarians and the vlachs, to the pope Innocentius III, translated from BULGARIAN to greek, and from greek to latin.
....
the original:

Littere Caloiohannis, domini Bulgarorum et Blachorum, misse Innocentio pape III, translate de bulgarico in grecum et de greco in latinum...

from the same letter:

....At first place we, like a beloving sons want from our mother, the Roman church, imperial crown and dignity, the same way our old imperors had them. According to our books, one of them was Peter, other Samuel, as well as their predecessors.

the original:
...In primus petimus ab ecclesia Romana matre nostra coronam et honorem tamquam dilectus filius, secundum quod imperatores nostri veteres habuerunt. Unus fuit Petrus, aluis fuit Samuel et alii, qui eos imperio precessarunt, sicut in libris nostris invenimus esse scriptum.

Here, as well as in several other places Kaloyan claims to be the inheritor of the bulgarian tzars, including the official document in which he submits under the rule of Roman church:
Et diligenter perscrutantes, in eorum invenimus scripturis quod beate memorie illi imperatores Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Symeon, Petrus et Samuel et nostri predecessores coronam pro imperio eorum et patriarchalem...

nostrum scripturas et libros et beate memorie imperatorum nostrorum predecessorum leges, unde ipsi sumpserunt regnum Bulgarorum et firmanentum imperiale, coronam super caput eorum......

Everywhere Kaloyan presents himself as the legitimate inheritor of the Bulgarian crown, and the official language in his court was Bulgarian (not, like in the example with William I, the Conqueror).
In most of the places he was mentioned as "the ruler of bulgarians and vlachs", "ruler of Bulgaria and Valachia", however in several occasions only "bulgarian king", but never only valachian. For example:
Innocentius III papa regi Bulgarorum scribit ut pacem cum imperatore Constantinopolitano et Latinis ineat
Carissimo in Christo filio nostro Kaloiohanni regi Bulgarorum illustri... or Caloiohannes, imperator Bulgarorum, sanctissimo domino, fidei Christianorum ab Oriente usque ad Occidentem patriarchae, papae Romano ...(the last was from a letter to the pope, the first from Innocentius to Kaloyan)

Everybody must to have in mind that this are extracts from contemporary official documents, not from chronicles written centuries after the events and from hostile and biased chroniclers (loyal to their sponsors).

Edited by Desperado - 19-Aug-2007 at 18:31

Originally posted by Anton my mocking tone is not for scholarship (its too phylosophical question) but to some ideas.

I quote from your previous reply to me for an answer: "V�s�ry haven't read Zlatarski or read it as devil reads the Holy Book". I rest my case.

Third, Zlatarski cites exactly the same passage from Choniates but also to make information complete cites the same passage from Scutariotes

Scutariotes writes in 15th century, Choniates is contemporary with the events - I fail to see the relevance. Also, the editors of Choniates (V�s�ry uses Franz Grabler's German edition from 1958, while Curta uses H. J. Magoulias' English edition from 1984 and I downloaded from Google Books an 1835 edition translated from Greek into Latin) seem to have forgotten to mention the text is interpolated in this passage (now that I have downloaded it I can give you the exact reference: On Isaac Angelos, Book I, chapter 4, in the 1835 edition at p. 482)

It might sound mocking again but is it a kind of a priori stuff that a man is Vlach untill it is proven the opposite.

It doesn't but I don't understand why a clear testimony of their Vlach ethnicity is disregarded and new hypotheses are built from other texts and inscriptions where ethnicity is not mentioned. "King of Bulgarians" it doesn't mean he's a Bulgarian.

Now, the text (in Latin, easier to write it and to translate it, I'm giving the Greek equivalents only for few key words):
... barbaros [...] qui olim Mysi (Μυσοι), nunc Blachi (Βλαχοι) nominatur. [...] fuere duo ex illa gente (εθνος) fratres, Petrus (Πετρος) et Asan (Ασαν)
... barbarians [...] which once were called Mysi and now are called Blachi. [...] were two brothers of that nation, Peter and Asan.

Edited by Chilbudios - 19-Aug-2007 at 21:05