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  <12345 28>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Second Bulgarian State
    Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 15:13
Originally posted by czarnian

Nowhere in the text Choniates states that the brothers are part of the same barbarians/mysians/vlachs, nowhere.
It says they were the instigators, it makes sense, also in economy the text, also logically, that they are of the same nation.
Besides the Western scholars seem also to favor this interpretation (and criticize Bulgarian scholars for misreading the sources):
Robert Lee Wolff, the aforementioned article, p. 175: "Moreover, the testimony of the sources is overwhelming that the brothers Peter (Kalopeter) and Asen (Assen, Asan), who led the revolt of 1186 were Vlachs."
Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in Middle Ages (2006), p. 358: "That Peter and Asen, the two brothers that led the revolt of 1186, were Vlachs is spelled clearly by sources dealing with this event" and Curta used the same Magoulias edition as I did.
István Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Otttoman Balkans (2005), p. 40: "Asen's Turkic (probably Cuman) name must be reconciled with the fact that sources unanimously testify to his being Vlakh."
 
And you seem to ignore that Ansbert (an independent, contemporary source) says clearly Peter and Asen were Vlachs. There's no reason to doubt that as long no other source claims they were Cumans, Bulgarians or whatever.
 
I just wanted to point out, how silly it is, to make such bold conclusions over one document, in your case Choniates.
Quit trolling. You were told already I'm using two sources: Choniates and Ansbert.
 
But tell me this, the names of the brothers, how come they have tukic name - Belgun and Asyan?
No source attests these names as you assign them. Their names are Peter (a Christian name worn by Greeks, Bulgarians and Vlachs among others) and Asen/Asan (subject to speculations).
 
If they were vlach or bulgarian( coz Choniates text could also stand for their bulgarian origin)
Choniates makes no suggestion they're Bulgarians.
 
isn't it logical that they( they are noblemen no doubt) are going to be baptised on birth?
There's no suggestion they were noblemen.


Edited by Chilbudios - 07-Jul-2008 at 15:40
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 15:48
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by czarnian

Nowhere in the text Choniates states that the brothers are part of the same barbarians/mysians/vlachs, nowhere.
It says they were the instigators, it makes sense, also in economy the text, also logically, that they are of the same nation.
Besides the Western scholars seem also to favor this interpretation (and criticize Bulgarian scholars for misreading the sources):
Robert Lee Wolff, the aforementioned article, p. 175: "Moreover, the testimony of the sources is overwhelming that the brothers Peter (Kalopeter) and Asen (Assen, Asan), who led the revolt of 1186 were Vlachs."
Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in Middle Ages (2006), p. 358: "That Peter and Asen, the two brothers that led the revolt of 1186, were Vlachs is spelled clearly by sources dealing with this event" and Curta used the same Magoulias edition as I did.
 
And you seem to ignore that Ansbert (an independent, contemporary source) says clearly Peter and Asen were Vlachs. There's no reason to doubt that as long no other source claims they were Cumans, Bulgarians or whatever.
 
I just wanted to point out, how silly it is, to make such bold conclusions over one document, in your case Choniates.
Quit trolling. You were told already I'm using two sources: Choniates and Ansbert.
 
But tell me this, the names of the brothers, how come they have tukic name - Belgun and Asyan?
No source attests these names as you assign them. Their names are Peter (a Christian name worn by Greeks, Bulgarians and Vlachs among others) and Asen/Asan (subject to speculations).
 
If they were vlach or bulgarian( coz Choniates text could also stand for their bulgarian origin)
Choniates makes no suggestion they're Bulgarians.
 
isn't it logical that they( they are noblemen no doubt) are going to be baptised on birth?
There's no suggestion they were noblemen.
Robert Lee Wolff's publication is from 1949, that is more than half a century ago.
He had the right to bash bulgarian/balkan historians in those days for their nationalism.
 
Regarding Ansbert, I have my concerns on his reliability. He is too distant witnes of the events to be credible source.
 
Asen - Ασαν - Assanius in turkic is wolf. In this russian chronicle http://www.krotov.info/acts/12/pvl/lavr09.htm
we can find information about couple of cuman nobles wearing that same name. Can you show me a vlachian with such name?
 
OK, lets say they were peasants. Peasants with big connections, if I may say so.
Not every peasent can arrange an audience with the emperor himself.
They were some kind of peasants, no doubt, peasants with balls of steel to stand infront
the emperor and demand "a precious peace of land in Haimos" from him(according to Choniates).
 
Lets leave Choniates for now. What about the corespondation between Kalo/Joan and Inokentii III, it seem that you are neglecting one very important fact. Joan states that he, and his brothers are descendants of the old bulgarian rulers.
 
ps
I'm not denying the vlachian theory at all. It is highly possible.
Just the way you interpret the known documents :)
A quick look, at what wiki has to say :)
T
he eminent Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarski has drawn attention to the fact that under Byzantine rule Bulgaria proper was divided between a theme of Bulgaria (in the west) and a theme called Paradounabion/Paristrion and later Moesia (in the east). Since Niketas Choniates explicitly states that "the Mysians ... are now called Vlachs", Zlatarski concludes that the conjoint terms Bulgarians and Vlachs found in the sources indicate the extension of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I's control over the population of both themes, Bulgaria and Moesia. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Ansbert, who would be correct to identify Peter IV as master of (all) Moesia (as ruler of the Vlachs) and of (a part) of Bulgaria (as ruler of the greater part--superlative!--of the Bulgarians). However, Zlatarski's analysis glosses over the important implication that in order for the Mysians to be called Vlachs in Choniates' time, there must have been very significant Vlach (Wallachian) population on the territory of Moesia itself. 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.


Edited by czarnian - 07-Jul-2008 at 16:21
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 16:18
Originally posted by czarnian

Robert Lee Wolff's publication is from 1949, that is more than half a century ago.
He had the right to bash bulgarian/balkan historians in those days for their nationalism.
Yes, but Curta and Vásáry are recent. Vásáry actually believes the Asenids were originally Cumans which were first assimilated as Vlachs and later on as Bulgarians, but this is just his hypothesis, he admits however all the sources are unanimous in calling the two brothers Vlachs, and this was my point.
 
Regarding Ansbert, I have my concerns on his reliability. He is too distant witnes of the events to be credible source.
You seem to forget of 3rd and 4th crusades . The Western chroniclers weren't that uninformed.
Robert de Clari, participant in the 4th crusade, speaks of "Jean le Valaque" (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/clari3.htm - here translated as "John the Wallach"), probably Kaloyan.
 
Asen - Ασαν - Assanius in turkic is wolf. In this russian chronicle http://www.krotov.info/acts/12/pvl/lavr09.htm
we can find information about couple of cuman nobles wearing that same name. Can you show me a vlachian with such name?
Can you show me a source calling Asen Bulgarian or Cuman?
 
What about the corespondation between Kalo/Joan and Inokentii III, it seem that you are neglecting one very important fact. Joan states that he, and his brothers are descendants of the old bulgarian rulers.
 Where does he state that? 
 

A quick look, at what wiki has to say :)
T
he eminent Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarski has drawn attention to the fact that under Byzantine rule Bulgaria proper was divided between a theme of Bulgaria (in the west) and a theme called Paradounabion/Paristrion and later Moesia (in the east). Since Niketas Choniates explicitly states that "the Mysians ... are now called Vlachs", Zlatarski concludes that the conjoint terms Bulgarians and Vlachs found in the sources indicate the extension of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I's control over the population of both themes, Bulgaria and Moesia. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Ansbert, who would be correct to identify Peter IV as master of (all) Moesia (as ruler of the Vlachs) and of (a part) of Bulgaria (as ruler of the greater part--superlative!--of the Bulgarians). However, Zlatarski's analysis glosses over the important implication that in order for the Mysians to be called Vlachs in Choniates' time, there must have been very significant Vlach (Wallachian) population on the territory of Moesia itself. 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.
 
Funny, you commented about Wolff being right to point out the excesses of Bulgarian scholarship before WWII, but now you go on with Zlatarski's theories. Let's read from Wolff (p. 174):
"this period (1018-1185) and the one which follows (1185-1204), with which we are most concerned, have become the subject of much controversy between chauvinist Bulgarian and Rumanian scholars. In general, it is the Bulgarians' purpose to proclaim, so far as they can make the testimony of the sources conform to their preconceptions, that Bulgaria remained a single administrative unit until late in the period; that the Bulgarians were always restive under and rebellious against Byzantine rule; and, above all, that the Vlachs played no part in the developments at the end of the period of Byzantine occupation which led to the formation of the second 'Bulgarian' Empire. Of this school the most famous representative is Vasil Zlatarski, although Peter Mutafčiev, Peter Nikov, and Ivan Duičev have not been far behind."
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 07-Jul-2008 at 16:29
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: 07-Jul-2008 at 16:23
Istvan vasary concludes in his book asen brothers as vlachs with cuman origin
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 16:30
Yes, but he has no firm evidence but a hypothesis, he admits the sources overwhelmly state that Asenids were Vlachs.
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: 07-Jul-2008 at 16:33
My question is if asen brothers were from vlach stock than why did they call cumans beyond danube, why didnt they called the vlachs 
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 16:40

Because politics doesn't always follow the ethnic borders. Even if Asens were of Cuman extraction, I doubt that was the reason for allying with Cumans and not some more pragmatic reasoning.



Edited by Chilbudios - 07-Jul-2008 at 16:40
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 19:25
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by czarnian

Robert Lee Wolff's publication is from 1949, that is more than half a century ago.
He had the right to bash bulgarian/balkan historians in those days for their nationalism.
Yes, but Curta and Vásáry are recent. Vásáry actually believes the Asenids were originally Cumans which were first assimilated as Vlachs and later on as Bulgarians, but this is just his hypothesis, he admits however all the sources are unanimous in calling the two brothers Vlachs, and this was my point.
 
Regarding Ansbert, I have my concerns on his reliability. He is too distant witnes of the events to be credible source.
You seem to forget of 3rd and 4th crusades . The Western chroniclers weren't that uninformed.
Robert de Clari, participant in the 4th crusade, speaks of "Jean le Valaque" (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/clari3.htm - here translated as "John the Wallach"), probably Kaloyan.
 
Asen - Ασαν - Assanius in turkic is wolf. In this russian chronicle http://www.krotov.info/acts/12/pvl/lavr09.htm
we can find information about couple of cuman nobles wearing that same name. Can you show me a vlachian with such name?
Can you show me a source calling Asen Bulgarian or Cuman?
 
What about the corespondation between Kalo/Joan and Inokentii III, it seem that you are neglecting one very important fact. Joan states that he, and his brothers are descendants of the old bulgarian rulers.
 Where does he state that? 
 

A quick look, at what wiki has to say :)
T
he eminent Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarski has drawn attention to the fact that under Byzantine rule Bulgaria proper was divided between a theme of Bulgaria (in the west) and a theme called Paradounabion/Paristrion and later Moesia (in the east). Since Niketas Choniates explicitly states that "the Mysians ... are now called Vlachs", Zlatarski concludes that the conjoint terms Bulgarians and Vlachs found in the sources indicate the extension of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I's control over the population of both themes, Bulgaria and Moesia. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Ansbert, who would be correct to identify Peter IV as master of (all) Moesia (as ruler of the Vlachs) and of (a part) of Bulgaria (as ruler of the greater part--superlative!--of the Bulgarians). However, Zlatarski's analysis glosses over the important implication that in order for the Mysians to be called Vlachs in Choniates' time, there must have been very significant Vlach (Wallachian) population on the territory of Moesia itself. 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.
 
Funny, you commented about Wolff being right to point out the excesses of Bulgarian scholarship before WWII, but now you go on with Zlatarski's theories. Let's read from Wolff (p. 174):
"this period (1018-1185) and the one which follows (1185-1204), with which we are most concerned, have become the subject of much controversy between chauvinist Bulgarian and Rumanian scholars. In general, it is the Bulgarians' purpose to proclaim, so far as they can make the testimony of the sources conform to their preconceptions, that Bulgaria remained a single administrative unit until late in the period; that the Bulgarians were always restive under and rebellious against Byzantine rule; and, above all, that the Vlachs played no part in the developments at the end of the period of Byzantine occupation which led to the formation of the second 'Bulgarian' Empire. Of this school the most famous representative is Vasil Zlatarski, although Peter Mutafčiev, Peter Nikov, and Ivan Duičev have not been far behind."
 
 
 
 
 
Ha-ha my firend, that statement made me laugh. Calling Zlatarski or Mutafciev chauvinists is pure ignorance. From what i've read, I can hardly say that Wolff is unbiased.  His words are notihg more than bashing on very low, personal level. Very similar with  the "dispute" Zlatarski and the pioneer of bulgarian chuvinism - the late prof. Gancho Cenov* had, regarding Cenov's nationalistic theories. 
 
*He has multiple publications in Western Europe, mainly in Germany and Austria.
-"Goten oder Bulgaren." Leipzig, Dyk, 1915
-"Geschichte der Bulgaren." Steiwetz, Berlin, 1917
-"Die Abstammung der Bulgaren und die Urheimat der Slaven." - 1930 
-"Geschichte der Bulgaren und der anderen Subslaven." - 1935 
In those sudies you'll find some very interestig, yet controversial interpretations/translations  of the majority of published and unpublished documents regarding the medieval bulgarians.

PS
The fact, that Wolff is a western historian, doesn't mean he is immune to bashing, hypocrysy, missiterpretation and all those "little thing, which are so typical for his Balkan colleagues".
 
So lets ger back on topic.
 
Yes you are right about the crusedes, and the western documents do refer as vlach and
Vlachia regarding Second Bulgarian state in its first years, and regarding the brothers. But the majority, if not all, of greek/byzantine medieval "historians" refer to the events from the end of the 12th  century as the rebirth of Bulgaria.
 
As I wrote "a page or two" before, the Bulgarian empire/s was/were a polyethnic conglomerate, like the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire and her descendent the Ottoman Empire. The vlachian population south of the river was always a part of both the firts, and second Bulgarian states, there is no doubt about that. The same can't be told about the vlachs north of Danube, or those in Epiros, or the ones in Dalmatia. It doesn't matter what is the origin of the brothers, coz both moesyans/vlachs and bulgarians were part of the same empire.*
 
*Choniates is very clear on that one :P
 
The etnichal origin of the ruling class is not determinant. If you prefer to differ, I'll ask you this: How many of the byzantine emperors were ethnical greeks ;) ? 
 


Edited by czarnian - 07-Jul-2008 at 19:31
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 19:54
"We know that when the second bulgarian empire was struggling against the roman empire the cuman majority was living north of the danube. They were spending their summer in their homeland and with the call of asen brothers pass the danube and cooperate with rebellion. So can we say that todays romania was the heartland of cumans?Some sources called that lands cumania. Did the vlachs form the majority of todays romania at that time?Dear Carpathian wolf did the vlachs in the north of the danube participated in the rebellion?"
 
Today's Romania the heartland of Cumans? Well you have to understand the Cumans were a ruling class. Never the majority in Romania. The same way the Vikings ruled over the Slavs in Russia, the Varangian Rus.
 
Did the Vlachs participate in the rebellion? I'd say they were the ones that started it because the emperor at the time raised taxes unfairly against the shepherds.
 
 
"That's a preconception. There are plenty of bronze artefacts (also coins) in settlements and burials attributed to "barbarians", many of which were manufactured in the Roman Empire. Probably they weren't gifts, but acquired through trade or raiding, but it's false to imagine everything around these "barbarians" was golden. "
 
No it's a logical result. You don't trade with nations you are at war with. It wasn't that the barbarians had everything golden, it was that when they asked for tribute or things like that they'd ask for gold, not bronze coins. And you don't get the scale of coins found simply by raiding. It clearly shows a latinate population living north of the Danube.
 
"That's another preconception. Some manufacturers produced both wheeled and unwheeled pots at the same time. There's no such thing as Slavic pottery (there were some theories about typologies like Prague type but they were already dismissed as methodologically unsound). "
 
Nope, at the time only the Greeks and Romans had the potter's wheel. At least as far as I know. If you could show me potter's wheel in the 4th-6th century made by someone else in the area i'd gladly change my mind.
 
"Actually, the term was "iudex", a Latin term. No need to Romanianize the terms.
And it was no Transylvanian document, but Roman writers. This Goth iudex was Athanaric:
Auxentius of Durostorum: iudice Gothorum
Ammianus Marcellinus: iudicem potentissimum, Athanaricus Thervingorum iudex"
 
Romanianize those terms. LOL Sounds funny to me. Anyway...
...the only difference was the lost x. And in any case it was still a latin term. My point still stands.
 
"That's a conjecture. The name *Donaris is not attested (it was reconstructed after river names like Naparis)"
 
I've seen older maps with the name Donaris and I think Herdotus and Strabo attest to such name in their writings. No?
 
"I'm in no way denying the existence of a Romanian/proto-Romanian ethnicity, but it's no need to resort to stereotypes to prove it. "
 
Stereo types? I don't think so. Just other points to use.
 
"

"@Carpathian wolf

Here is the original latin text of the letter to Joan from the pope :)

Respexit Dominus humilitatem tuam et devotionem quam erga Romanam Ecclesiam cognosceris hactenus habuisse, et te inter tumultus bellicos et guerrarum discrimina non solum potenter defendit, sed etiam mirabiliter et misericorditer dilatavit. Nos autem audito quod de nobili urbis Romae prosapia progenitores tui originem traxerint, et tu ab eis et sanguinis generositatem contraxeris et sincerae devotionis affectum quem ad apostolicam sedem geris quasi haereditario jure, jampridem te proposuimus litteris et nuntiis visitare...""

I'm a bit late but it seems other documents shed light and they (the brothers) seem to be much more Vlach then previously thought. Anyway the fact that the pope said "heard" doesn't make it a very good point against the Vlach origin theory.
 
"OK, lets say they were peasants. Peasants with big connections, if I may say so.
Not every peasent can arrange an audience with the emperor himself.
They were some kind of peasants, no doubt, peasants with balls of steel to stand infront
the emperor and demand "a precious peace of land in Haimos" from him(according to Choniates)."
 
Hey, even Emperor Traian was only a soldier to start wasn't he? And when you succeed in a rebellion, people listen to you. That is also why probably the Cumans came to help.
 
"Lets leave Choniates for now. What about the corespondation between Kalo/Joan and Inokentii III, it seem that you are neglecting one very important fact. Joan states that he, and his brothers are descendants of the old bulgarian rulers."

"The etnichal origin of the ruling class is not determinant. If you prefer to differ, I'll ask you this: How many of the byzantine emperors were ethnical greeks ;) ?  "

Most? But i agree with your point that the ruling class does not always make the majority of the people. The Cumans in Romania and the Varangian Rus in Russia are a good example of this.
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 20:02
Yep that's my point. Their non-greek origin doesn't make them something less of an byzantine emperors. The same is with the rulers of the Second Bulgarian state. Regardless their origin they are still proclaimed, and acting, like/as bulgarian emperors/tzars.


Edited by czarnian - 07-Jul-2008 at 20:05
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 20:17
Okay so they are Vlachs that acted like Bulgarian czars? :p
 
And what is the difference?
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 21:00

There is no difference at all, as I said moesyans(vlachs, slavs, bulgarians living south of Danube) were part of the same country => they were all bulgarians living in Bulgaria, the same way the people from Thessalonica, Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch were romans. So in that case in a polyethnical community, the ethnical origin doesn't really matter. As I wrote a page ago, the truth is somewhere in the middle :)



Edited by czarnian - 07-Jul-2008 at 21:15
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 21:31
If Bulgarian was to be used as a status term and not an ethnic term when you really just killed off all of your arguements that Brothers were ethnic Bulgarian completely.
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 21:35
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

If Bulgarian was to be used as a status term and not an ethnic term when you really just killed off all of your arguements that Brothers were ethnic Bulgarian completely.
 
LoL, where did I said that the brothers were completly ethnic bulgarians? I said no such thing Shocked The evidence for their purely bulgarian origin are from slim to none LOL


Edited by czarnian - 07-Jul-2008 at 21:43
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 21:42
I meant to use completely in relation to your theory, not that you claimed they were completely Bulgarian. Missed a comma.
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 21:49
My theory is that the broters are а "product" of an moesyan/cuman(scythian) relationship/mixture.  That would explain their strong possitions in the themes of Bulgaria and Paristrion and the cuman intervention later on.

Edited by czarnian - 07-Jul-2008 at 21:55
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: 08-Jul-2008 at 00:06
Let's not use the term scythian as to confuse the situation anymore. By this time Scythian was used for any eastern asiatic people by the Romans. Heck even the Russians were called Scythians.
 
Moesia was populated by what? Romanized Thracians. Vlachs are what? Romanized Thracians. And they were a lot more common in Bulgaria then they are today. I think they could have been Vlach and have just as much influence. Nothing to suggest other wise.
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: 08-Jul-2008 at 05:40

Moesia was part of the major barbaric invasions during the roman/byzantiane rule.
The province was populated by pechenegs, cumans and bulgarians a.k.a. slavs,
thracians(the autochtone population) and maybe some unassimilated remains of the old bulgars. 

 
I believe that at one moment the vlachs became even a majority(for a period of time).
As shepheards, using the mountains - their natural habitat as a defence against the various  barbaric hordes, they would've been safe, while the settled population(the majority) would've fled.

btw I don't think there are vlachs in Bulgaria in our days, it's the other way aroud if I may
say so. The migration was orientated north, not south.During the Ottoman rule, a great percentage of bulgarians  fled to Vlachia and Moldavia(which preserved somekind of autonomy) seaking refugee.



Edited by czarnian - 08-Jul-2008 at 05:47
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: 08-Jul-2008 at 06:04

First we must clear one thing up. When we speak of migrations we must understand the scale at which they came. It took the full might of the Roman Empire to fund the Legions used in Dacia, just across the Danube river. Do you honestly think that some migrants would have the ability to fund large groups and communities? Of course not. The migrating groups were small. Because of the territory of Romania and the organization of the people they have been able to maintain their ethnic idenity through the years. This is attested even in our language, which has maintained the original latin grammar. The slavic has only managed to add to our vocabulary. Not even the Italians have the original latin grammar. Only the Sardinians IIRC can claim the same. My point is, that the Romanians were always the majority in Romania, and before them, their ancestors the Dacians (Thracians). The pechengs, Cumans, Slavs, Bulgarians, none of those were ever a majority.

 
There are Romanians in Bulgaria today. I just saw part of a news segment discussing how the Bulgarian government closed their churches and schools down and are attempting to assimilate them. I hope that is an exception and not a norm. Similar situation in the Timoc valley but a bit more tame.
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: 08-Jul-2008 at 06:13
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

There are Romanians in Bulgaria today. I just saw part of a news segment discussing how the Bulgarian government closed their churches and schools down and are attempting to assimilate them.
 
This is utter BS Angry! I want to see a official source, that can clarify your information!
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

My point is, that the Romanians were always the majority in Romania, and before them, their ancestors the Dacians (Thracians). The pechengs, Cumans, Slavs, Bulgarians, none of those were ever a majority.
 
 
Shocked And where did I made the opposite statemen? Nowhere!
And yes it's logical the vlachs are going to be a majority in Romania LOL
Why are you alway turning the conversation at Romania?
I was talking about Moesia (the teritory between Danube and the Balkan mountain),
not Romania. Why would I talk about Romania gosh...
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Do you honestly think that some migrants would have the ability to fund large groups and communities?
 
We are talking about 5 centuries of migrations my friend Wink


Edited by czarnian - 08-Jul-2008 at 06:21
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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 0.125 seconds.