Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Second Bulgarian State
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 28>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Second Bulgarian State
    Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 16:30
Hello friends. I am opening this topic to have your thoughts about the second bulgarian state which formed by the Asen brothers. Here some debatable issues:
1- What are the origin of Asen brothers(Bulgarian-Vlach)?
2-Does vlach mean at that period for lifestyle or a race? 
3-We know the crucial millitary assists of cumans to the struggle. Does the vlachs contributed to the millitary actions?
4-Could we look to this state as a Bulgar-Vlach-Cuman state(For the initial phase)? 
Back to Top
czarnian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 06-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151 		  Quote czarnian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 18:56

Hi guys, this is my first post here, glad to find a place in which i can discuss on topics that are close to me.


So for your first question regarding the origin of the brothers, i'm going to post
part of the correspondence between pope Inokentii III and the youngest of the brothers - tzar Kalo/Joan.
~note~ the translation is not 100% accurate~

A letter from year 1199,  that the pope wrote to Joan:

"To the noble/honest man Joan. God turned his attention to your humbleness and devotion/attachment, which are very well known, for the Roman/Chatolic church... And we, after we heard, that your ancestors have descended from
the noble city of Rome, and that you've gained your noble blood and meaning of true loyalty from them..."

So from this letter we are told that Inokentii III heard, not read, that Joan and his brothers and probably their ancestors( the Krum dynasty???) originated from the city of Rome, that makes them true romans. This is one very ubelievable conclusion, we don't have confirmation for the roman origin in any known document, and the pope's words are simply a diplomatic manoeuvre, pointing at the future transition/union between the bulgarian and the chatolic churches.

A letter from the pope to the hungarian king Emerich regarding the hungarian withdraw and the recapture of the Belgrad and Branichevo provinces/regions by the bulgarians:

"... It is true ,that in Bulgaria many tzars/emperors have been crowned by us/the chatolic church a.k.a the pope/ like Samuil or Petar and others after them. It is also true, that thanks to the preaching of our noble pope Nikolai I, the bulgarian tzar was baptised/865-866/ along with his whole kingdome. But at the end the greeks came up stronger, and the bulgarians lost their royal heritage, and were put under the rule of Constantinople.In time two brothers Petar and Joan/Asen which were descendants/part of the old royal kin came, and they begun not to conquer, but to recover their father's lands, and one day they managed to win great victories and defeat many nations..."

From this part of the letter we are told that the brothers are from the same old royal kin( the pope doesn't say which dynasty).  That makes them bulgarian in origin. Kalo/Joan in other hand made no such claims. In another note this time between him and the pope, he wrotes:

"First, as the favourite son of our mother - the Roman church, we demand the royal crown and nobility, in the way it was given to our old emperors. It's writen in our books/documents that one was Petar, than Samuil, and many others that preceded them."

In the whole correspondence between the two, Kalo/Joan not once wrote that he, or his brothers are from the same kin as the previous rulers a.k.a from the Krum dynasty.
He is their heir not by blood, but by the royal crown and his position of the bulgarina tzar.
So once again the pope's statement about Kalo/Joan's origin/and his brothers/ is another attempt to verify his rights, over the land og his "father", in order to win his alligance.

There is no doubt that from the begining, the three brothers are acting with idea, that they are rebuildng the Bulgarian tzardom. The first capital of the Second Bulgarian state/empire is Preslav/the old capital/, not Turnovgrad - for a short period of time of course.

In the modern bulgarian historiography, the Kuman thesis about the origin of the brothers, is well supported. As you know they exerted an enduring impact on the medieval Balkans. And yes I also stand by the Kuman theory. I'll post more on their role in the Second Bulgarian state, and why the Kuman theory of their origin is closest to the truth.

That is for now :)

Best Joan.



Edited by czarnian - 06-Jul-2008 at 19:18
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 19:20
1. Judging even from the letter that was posted, the Roman origin is very specified while the others simply denote "old kin" vague wording. We also have to look under the circumstances that this kingdom was created. The Roman (Byzantine) Empire raised taxes on the shepherds. The Vlachs were usually the shepherds, so the Asen brothers led a revolt do to the unfair taxing.
 
2. Vlach (Slavic) from the Germanic (Walah) which means stranger/latin and is also used for waloons and Welsh (Romanized Celts). Vlach itself denotes the specific latins of the Balkans by the Slavs. Vlachs never really called themselves Vlachs until the more recent years. For example Wallachia was called Tara Romaneasca (The Roman land).
 
3. The chronicle Oguzname, the oldest Turkish chronicle in existence, mentioning a warlike expedition of the Cumans, affirms the existence of a “Country of the Vlachs” east of the Carpathians in 839, affirming that the region was well organized and with a powerful army.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 19:34
I think there is maybe an important point. When they rebelled their first target was Preslav, the capital of the first state of the bulgarians. I think whatever their origins they tried to recreate the bulgarian empire and they succeed it.
 
And again, could the sources of that time call the pastoral bulgarians as vlachs. If the vlachs are the ancestors of todays romania then a common struggle was performed by two nation against an empire and this is important because it could be accepted as the first romanian state also. Does any of our bulgarian and romanian brothers have any comment?
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 19:47
But at the time Vlach was strictly an ethnic term. It wasn't until later that Vlach spread as a term of a "job". For example when the Scandanavians raided the british isles there was a time when they were stopped and someone asked them who they were. And they replied with "viking" which means raider. It wasn't an ethnic term. The Albanian term for Vlach is "Ciobani" which in Romanian means Shepherd. This was because just like in my previous example there was a time when the people there asked them who they were, and they replied with their profession. Vlach on the other hand was strictly an ethnic term then.
 
On your point about where they attacked first, there is no doubt they were pulling a political manuver in trying to gain credibility from the populace around them. It only seems logical and a well planned out move.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by the first Romanian state however. Oguzname certainly suggests there was a state even previously to this kingdom.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 19:58

Really I dont know anything about the the first romanian state that you  mentioned? Above the danube I think
Back to Top
czarnian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 06-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151 		  Quote czarnian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 20:02
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

And again, could the sources of that time call the pastoral bulgarians as vlachs. If the vlachs are the ancestors of todays romania then a common struggle was performed by two nation against an empire and this is important because it could be accepted as the first romanian state also. Does any of our bulgarian and romanian brothers have any comment?
 
No my friend, the first Vlach/Romanian state was the Vlachian voevodstvo established in the begining of the 14 century.  The state was established south of the Carpathian Mountains and north ot the Danube, near the river Olt. It's founder was a voevoda named Joan Besarab(1310-1352). The first capital of the young state was the Ardzesh castle. The capital was mooved south in the castle of Turgovishte(now in the territory of modern Bulgaria).


Edited by czarnian - 06-Jul-2008 at 20:04
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 20:06
Originally posted by czarnian

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

And again, could the sources of that time call the pastoral bulgarians as vlachs. If the vlachs are the ancestors of todays romania then a common struggle was performed by two nation against an empire and this is important because it could be accepted as the first romanian state also. Does any of our bulgarian and romanian brothers have any comment?
 
No my friend, the first Vlach/Romanian state was the Vlachian voevodstvo established in the begining of the 14 century.  The state was established sauth of the Carpathian Mountains and north ot the Dunab, near the river Olt. It's founder was a voevoda named Joan Besarab(1310-1352). The first capital of the young state was the Ardzesh castle. The capital was mooved south in the castle of Turgovishte(now in the territory of modern Bulgaria).
Yes I know that state. But what are the contributions of the vlachs to the establishment of the bulgarian state. Minimal or substantial?
Back to Top
czarnian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 06-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151 		  Quote czarnian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 20:09
They are clearly substantial :)
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 20:12

Then what did happen to this vlachs? They were assimilated or migrated to the north of danube? Or did they participated actively for the state to the turkish intervention?
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 20:31
"No my friend, the first Vlach/Romanian state was the Vlachian voevodstvo established in the begining of the 14 century.  The state was established south of the Carpathian Mountains and north ot the Danube, near the river Olt. It's founder was a voevoda named Joan Besarab(1310-1352). The first capital of the young state was the Ardzesh castle. The capital was mooved south in the castle of Turgovishte(now in the territory of modern Bulgaria). "
 
But the turkish chronicle above suggests other wise. We then have the Goths which according to Jordanes, its rulers linked their bloodline to Decebalus. And then if we are to consider the Asen brothers Vlachs, then wouldn't the "2nd Bulgarian Empire" really be a Vlacho-Bulgar nation? What are the perameters we are using in denoting a state?
 
"Yes I know that state. But what are the contributions of the vlachs to the establishment of the bulgarian state. Minimal or substantial?"
 
Impossible to do without.
 
"Then what did happen to this vlachs? They were assimilated or migrated to the north of danube? Or did they participated actively for the state to the turkish intervention?"
 
Here is a good map:
 
 
Though it doesn't take into account the Romanians to the Tisa which were magyarized it shows the commonality in the Balkans.
 
The Vlachs south of the Donaris could have assimilated or moved south/north. I know today Romanians have a problem in some parts of Bulgaria where the government is doing their best to absorb them.
Back to Top
czarnian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 06-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151 		  Quote czarnian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 20:44
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

"No my friend, the first Vlach/Romanian state was the Vlachian voevodstvo established in the begining of the 14 century.  The state was established south of the Carpathian Mountains and north ot the Danube, near the river Olt. It's founder was a voevoda named Joan Besarab(1310-1352). The first capital of the young state was the Ardzesh castle. The capital was mooved south in the castle of Turgovishte(now in the territory of modern Bulgaria). "
 
But the turkish chronicle above suggests other wise. We then have the Goths which according to Jordanes, its rulers linked their bloodline to Decebalus. And then if we are to consider the Asen brothers Vlachs, then wouldn't the "2nd Bulgarian Empire" really be a Vlacho-Bulgar nation? What are the perameters we are using in denoting a state?
 
 
Only if we concider them vlachs :)
And even if we concider them, we can't talk about nations in those times. There is no bulgarian nation, no byzantian/eastern-roman nation, no serbian nation. They are just polyethnoses.
Those centuries are the time of massive barbric invasions, wave afrer wave of kumans, pechengs, tatars etc. and we just can't talk about some kind of national ideal. That is the essence of being an empire, you have to find a way to make your essential parts co-exist with each other.
Another thing,  Joan wore the title "Emperor of vlachs and bulgarians" “imperator omnium Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Simeon wore the title "Emperor of greeks and bulgarians", but that doesn't meen we have a greeko-bulgarian nationality right?
And in some documents the Secon Bulgarian State was named Vlachia, but that's only regarding the first years after the rebelion. In the majority of documents( eastern, western, etc.) the state was named Bulgaria.


Edited by czarnian - 06-Jul-2008 at 21:03
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 20:53
"Only if we concider them vlachs :)"
 
Just using your source.
 
"
And even if we, we can't talk about nations in those times. There is no bulgarian nation, no byzantian/eastern-roman nation, no serbian nation. They are just polyethnoses.
Those centuries are the time of massive barbric invasions, wave afrer wave of kumans, pechengs, tatars etc. and we just can't talk about some kind of national ideal. That is the essence of being an empire, you have to find a way to make your essential parts co-exist with each other."
 
I'm not sure that is entirely accurate because I still am not sure what you mean by a nation. A ruling body where most of the people are of one major ethnic group perhaps?
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 21:23
"
Another thing,  Joan wore the title "Emperor of vlachs and bulgarians" “imperator omnium Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Simeon wore the title "Emperor of greeks and bulgarians", but that doesn't meen we have a greeko-bulgarian nationality right?
And in some documents the Secon Bulgarian State was named Vlachia, but that's only regarding the first years after the rebelion. In the majority of documents( eastern, western, etc.) the state was named Bulgaria."
 
Sure it does mean you had a Greek nationality in it. The Greeks had colonies all up and down the black sea coast. Greeks lived throughout the area.
 
So what if it was only called that for the first few years as you say? That doesn't change anything.
Back to Top
czarnian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 06-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151 		  Quote czarnian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 21:35
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

"
So what if it was only called that for the first few years as you say? That doesn't change anything.
 
Yes, if we assume that the "vlach" and "bulgarian" are used in their toponymic sense, not
their ethnical , it does.
 
Regarding the rebelion of 1185 Nikita Choniat wrote:
"... as he plundered the cities next to Anhialo/ΑΝΧΙΑΛΟΣ, he managed to arm against him the greeks and barbarians north of Hemus/Balkan mountain, which were once called mizi and now vlachs."
It's clear that the vlach/mizi were a major factor in the province of Paristrion/Paradounavon(between the Balkan mountain and Danube).There is clearly a differentiation between vlachs, bulgarians and schytians in the documents regarding the rebelion and the years after it.
In a nother document by Choniat, we can read that:
"They weren't satisfied by their freedom and rulership in the lands of Mizia(Paristrion), they tried to harm the greeks and romans, and they tried to unite the rule of the mizians and bulgarians, as it once was, long ago..."
In this document we find again the "mizians" used over the "vlachs". If the "mizians" are used in their toponymic sense (not in their ethnical), the same can be told about those bulgarians pointed in the document.
 
The first are the people from Mizia/Paristrion(mixed populations of bulgarian and vlachs) and the second are the people from province of Bulgaria, and those both groups are successors of the First Bulgarian empire*.

*coz there is no other logical explanation what happend to the thracian/latin speaking population of the Balkans, after the arrival of the bulgarians in the 7 century. They were incorporated, in a way, in the new country.

 PS
Only Asen na Joan wore the title "Emperor of vlachs and bulgars", for exaple during the rule of Joan-Asen II the "vlachs" were removed from his royal title, but the teritory of 14 century Vlachia was under his rule, the same teritory was called Cumania in the 13 century...
 
But i think that a cuman origin for the brothers is more, if not 100% possible. I wish you a good night, more about the cuman origin tomorrow Cheers


Edited by czarnian - 06-Jul-2008 at 22:00
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 22:04
Istvan Vasary in his book named Cumans and Tartars concluded his opinion. He claimed with good evidence that  Asen brothers arevlachs with cuman origin. Isnt it interesting. 3 nations. Slavonic, latin and turkic origins
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 23:01
"Yes, if we assume that the "vlach" and "bulgarian" are used in their toponymic sense, not
their ethnical , it does."
 
Yes well it would be unprecedent if that were true no?
 
I found this on wiki which I usually don't use but I think it sways around some interesting ideas.
 
 
As for the Cuman origin, I think a mixed Cumanic origin is possible but purely Cumanic no. The Cumans and Romanians did not mix mostly simply based on the difference of religion. Did mixing happen? Sure but the Cumans were a ruling minority. There is more Cumanic mixture probably in the Hungarians where the Cumans settled in the south of present day Hungary IIRC.
 
 
As for Moesians that you were refering to as Mizi, those were a Romanized Daco-Thracian group, so they were Romanians.


Edited by Carpathian Wolf - 06-Jul-2008 at 23:02
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 23:05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Roman_Dacia_1.1.svg
Back to Top
czarnian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 06-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151 		  Quote czarnian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 05:38
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

As for Moesians that you were refering to as Mizi, those were a Romanized Daco-Thracian group, so they were Romanians.
 
It's a bit to harsh to say that the mizi/moesians are romanians, no romanians are mentioned in the documents for centuries. Before the fall of the First Bulgarian empire the bulgarian population north of the Balkan mountain was refered as moesians in the byzantine documents, there are no vlachs so where did they came from? 
from wiki:
"This means that even if the medieval description of the population is based primarily on the administrative division of the themes, the popular support for the rebellion of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I consisted of both Bulgarians and Vlachs, rather than exclusively one group or the other."
 
That's basicaly what i was trying to say. We have adminiinistrative and toponymic  divison and not ethnical. The rebelion was supported by both bulgarians - byzantian province/theme of Bulgaria, and by the bulgarians and vlachs - which became a factor in Moesia, after the fall of the first Empire, simply coz the center/capital/cultural center
of Samuil's Bulgaria was moved far to the west in Ochrid(modern FYROM)
 
And another thing, the influence of the bulgarian stete was remarkable, in the first centuries, of the existance of the Vlachian voevodstvo. One of the main languages used
in the administration and the only language used in the lithurgies,  in the ortodox churches was the bulgarian language till the 18 century, when the idea for a romanian nation was formed.
 
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884 		  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 05:53
Oh wow it's going to be like that. Disapprove
 
No Romanians mentioned? Romanians are Romanized Geto-Dacians. So they are made up of Romans. History tells us that Roman colonists were brought to colonise the land. At the time the only people who could call themselves Romans were Roman citizens, which were the people who lived in Rome itself. Legio Gemini XIII and Legio Macedonia V were also settled in the area. So are you saying the term "Romanian" was not used until the 18th century? It still isn't used today by us. We use "Roman".
 
Patria nuastra este Roma. Eu sunt Roman.
 
And I show you on the map what was Moesia at the time. The eastern half of Romania pretty much. So Moesians were Vlachs. And we even have Romanians today in Serbia, and in Greece, and Bulgaria and as far west as the Istro.
 
Where did the Vlachs come from? The Romanized population of Geto-Dacians and Thracians.
 
As for the language used, it was Church Slavonic and this doesn't mean Romanians didn't exist. Because the Hungarians and Poles used Latin in their administration and church, does that mean they are actually latins?
 
To say that the idea of the Romanian nation came in the 18th century just shows what books you've been reading friend.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 28>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.