Second Bulgarian State

Originally posted by Anton But this is exactly what I mean. Choniates mentioned this as Vlach revolt rather than a revolt of population of Bulgaria. Which you must admit was mostly Bulgarian in cultural sence. And if this revolt  would be primarily Vlach then the obviously they would create Vlachian state. Which did not happen.

I don't think we have any sources to provide a decent ethnographic picture of 12th century Bulgaria, so what would mean "mostly Bulgarian in cultural sense"?

Originally posted by Chilbudios I don't think we have any sources to provide a decent ethnographic picture of 12th century Bulgaria, so what would mean "mostly Bulgarian in cultural sense"?   The second conclusion does not follow. Even the Byzantine empire, though formed mostly as Roman empire eventually became Greek. Why couldn't a Vlach revolt then turn eventually to a Bulgarian state (for which we don't even have the grounds to estimate how many Bulgarian speakers it had, maybe it was like Czernian attempts to minimize the term  Vlach, only a territorial denomination, Bulgarians = inhabitants of Bulgaria).

Maybe we don't have any source but we definitely know the outcome. As for Byzantine Empire -- I disagree. It became Greek in ethnical greek borders. The rest became slavonic, turkish and arabic.

We have a Roman Byzantine Empire (inheriting Roman institutions, traditions even using Latin language for a while as official language) and a Greek Byzantine Empire (sometimes these two overalapped having thus a Greek-speaking Roman empire). We have no Slavic or Turkish or Arabic Byzantine empires.

Speculation from your side. We have two written sources attesting Peter and Asen to be Vlachs. And most of the scholars (except Bulgarian scholars I don't know of any other suggesting they could have been Bulgarian) concluding they were either Vlach, Cuman (based on the alleged Turkic name of Asen), or Vlacho-Cuman.

Not once I've said that they were from bulgarian origin.
Further more, the official possition of the most prominent bulgarian scolars is that
they are from mixed-barbarian origin. On the other hand, you and your romanian coutry man, went so far to claim the second bulgarian state - wlachian( I see you like
to quote world known historian, so who non-romanina historian/nationalist dares to make such claims?). As I said numerous times in this topic, I don't care what etnicity they were.
The most important thing is that they acted, seeked and took recognition
(by the whole damn medieval world) as a descendants of the Bulgarian empire.

No domestic source has to say anything about who the Asenids were. I provided analogies multiple times but you ignored them. Is Charles I Robert, the king of the Hungarians, a Hungarian?

I've stated the same over and over again.

The rebellion started in Haemus, which stretches also to eastern Serbia (that is Moesia Superior). There's no more accurate information where the rebellion started.

The rebelion started/or the part of the rebelion that was leaded by the brothers/ after the ceremony in Turnowo, which is in Moesia.  The first goal was to liberate the last bulgarian capital, which is also in Moesia.  So the "million dollar question is" where did the rebelion that concerns us took place, in modernday Serbia or in modernday Bulgaria?

Choniates not only that shows them to be the leaders of the Vlach rebellion, he also tells an episode with Asen speaking Vlach language. You could say it is all circumstantial, but all put together is they are said to be Vlach, to be leading the Vlachs, to speak Vlach, what else do you want?

Why couldn't a Vlach revolt then turn eventually to a Bulgarian state

And do we have the tiniest evidence about a different outcome of the revolt?

Similarly we have a Vlach revolt, we have a Vlacho-Bulgarian empire (tsar of the Vlachs and of the Bulgarians)

And to see whose fantasy is, can you list me some non-Balkanic scholars claiming the Thracians in the Balkans were not Romanized (or Hellenized)?

And which non-romanian historian says that the whole thracian population was latinized or Hellenized?
This historical non-sense could be found only in romanian history(I highly doubt this is supported by the official romanian historians, it looks like it is strongly supported by some romanian nationalists on this board):
so after a thousands of years of existing the thracians preserved their culture and language, then after 100-150 years of roman dominance the whole
thracian population was latinized, then after a 1000 years of being part of different societies, they preserved their latin/romanian self-consciousness. And how did they preserved their latin culture, languange etc. through the centuries? Only verbally , cause the first known trace about their latin language is dated in the 16 century.

Edited by czarnian - 30-Aug-2008 at 15:23

Originally posted by czarnian And which non-romanian historian says that the whole thracian population was latinized or Hellenized?

Basically, Thracians were absorbed into every local culture. Some were Latinized, some were Hellenized, some were Slavized. From these 3 new main Thracian groups, some became Mohammedans and were even Turkified.

The most distinct Thracian group that is a good example of all those mentioned above are the Pomaks. I don't know much about their possition in Bulgaria, but in Greece they want to be called Pomaks and nothing else. They are muslims in majority, but it is a serious insult if you dare to call them Turks. They're mostly Slavic speaking, some Greek speaking and very few Latin speaking. All are bilingual and some are trilingual.

What i'm trying to say is that there's no absolute condition regarding the Thracians. All cases you guys mention are real, but not exclusive for each case. In order to come to a such conclusion we don't need a non-Romanian or non-Bulgarian historian, but common sense.

Originally posted by Flipper What i'm trying to say is that there's no absolute condition regarding the Thracians. All cases you guys mention are real, but not exclusive for each case. In order to come to a such conclusion we don't need a non-Romanian or non-Bulgarian historian, but common sense.

Originally posted by Flipper The area around Antiochia is considered for example the Arabic part of the Empire. Also, the Seljuks managed to conquer quite early the most eastern parts of it.

Not once I've said that they were from bulgarian origin. Further more, the official possition of the most prominent bulgarian scolars is that they are from mixed-barbarian origin. On the other hand, you and your romanian coutry man, went so far to claim the second bulgarian state - wlachian( I see you like to quote world known historian, so who non-romanina historian/nationalist dares to make such claims?). As I said numerous times in this topic, I don't care what etnicity they were.

I don't think you know much about me or other Romanian scholars. The Romanian scholars like to call the second Bulgarian state as Vlacho-Bulgarian tsardom according to the official title of Ioannitsa. And I only questioned who Peter and Asen were, and eventually what Vlach meant in that epoch.
Also, many Bulgarian scholars (see the overviews made by Robert Lee Wolff or Istvan Vasary) claimed the Asenids to be Bulgarians. Mutafciev or Zlatarski, for instance, claimed that Asenids were Bulgarians, and that Vlach was a way for Byzantines to avoid saying "Bulgarian", like Wolff put it "Bulgarian from that part of Bulgaria no longer called Bulgaria", which is roughly what you and Anton say.

If you don't care what ethnicity they had, or if you suggest they were not Bulgarians why do you keep minimizing the sources saying they were Vlach or try to suggest that when they say they were Vlach, they simply referred to some territory in Balkans (possibly inhabited by Bulgarians, right?)?

The most important thing is that they acted, seeked and took recognition (by the whole damn medieval world) as a descendants of the Bulgarian empire.

Charlemagne seeked recognition as Imperator Romanorum. Who thinks of him today as a Roman?

I've stated the same over and over again.

But you keep brining these sources like they could say anything about this issue.

The rebelion started/or the part of the rebelion that was leaded by the brothers/ after the ceremony in Turnowo, which is in Moesia.  The first goal was to liberate the last bulgarian capital, which is also in Moesia.  So the "million dollar question is" where did the rebelion that concerns us took place, in modernday Serbia or in modernday Bulgaria?

Not according to Choniates. The revolt started simply in Haemus mountains. They sent some messengers to Kypsalla to emperor, then was the St. Demetrios "church" episode, then we find first localizations - expansion beyond Zygon (I don't where that is, but a Zygos pass is between Thessaly and Epiros in Western Balkans) and the failed assault on Preslav (north-eastern Bulgaria). We do not have any chronology or any details on where and how the revolt spread.

I would like to see that.

See what? Quotes from Choniates?

And do we have the tiniest evidence about a different outcome of the revolt?

Huh?

Check the title of Justinian for example. Does his title make his empire African-Roman empire?

He doesn't have the title of Byzantine emperor, yet why do you we call him one? Historiography gives whatever names sees fits for empires, is not like we claim the names we give now are the official titles from that era.
Your question is also a bit misleading. Roman empire was by definition in that era universalist. However there's no hesitation to mention other joint hegemonies like the Polish-Lithuanian one. True in the latter case we have two distinct polities participating in an union, but on the other hand it is not at all clear how from the Asenids turned from leaders/emperors of the Vlachs (or of the Vlachs and a part of the Bulgarians or of the Vlachs and the Bulgarians) into emperors of the Bulgarians. If it is just a title, it may reflect some political games between factions of Vlach or Bulgarian descent, and that could justify even a temporary (until the reign of Boril) joint-title for this empire given by some historians. But the name of the empire is eventually conventional, this debate was started around the ethnic origin of the Asenids and perhaps about the existence of Vlachs (as in Romance speakers) in 12th century Balkans (I see now there's this trend to minimize the Romanization in Balkans, so to have the smallest possible number of Vlachs in 12th century Bulgaria).

And which non-romanian historian says that the whole thracian population was latinized or Hellenized?[/quote ]But why whole? If most of the Thracians in cities and large valleys were eventually Romanized and only some isolated communities survived in mountains, it is obvious that the former would matter most in the linguistic and cultural contacts. [quote]so after a thousands of years of existing the thracians preserved their culture and language, then after 100-150 years of roman dominance the whole thracian population was latinized, then after a 1000 years of being part of different societies, they preserved their latin/romanian self-consciousness. And how did they preserved their latin culture, languange etc. through the centuries? Only verbally , cause the first known trace about their latin language is dated in the 16 century.

First, you should get your history facts straight. The Roman province of Moesia was established in 1st century AD (though conquered in 1st century BC). The Danubian limes fell in 7th century AD. That is roughly 600-700 years of Roman dominance, not 100-150. A new language can be learnt with ease in few years (i.e. not trying too hard), so how much time do you think those Thracians needed to learn Latin? All society around them was speaking Latin, do you think they had much choices? Some isolated communities survived, but so are the Vlachs in today Bulgaria, isolated communities. If they try to participate actively in Bulgarian society sooner or later they'll be assimilated.
Second, why do you care how they did it, just deal with the facts. Isn't Romanian a Romance language? Aren't Vlach from Balkans (Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia, FYROM) speaking a Romance language? Did they immigrate from Italy or France? If not, where did they get the language from?

Edited by Chilbudios - 30-Aug-2008 at 18:36

If it is just a title, it may reflect some political games between factions of Vlach or Bulgarian descent, and that could justify even a temporary (until the reign of Boril) joint-title for this empire given by some historians.

Determine what you mean by Greek Empire. It was an empire populated by many different nations, mostly slavonic in Balkans with usage of Latin and Greek as official languages.

An empire where the official language was Greek and in the last centuries was also mostly Greek speaking.