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  <1 678910 28>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Second Bulgarian State
    Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 19:59
Umm...Vlachs are latins.
 
 
 
Would you like to restate your comment?
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: 02-Aug-2008 at 05:22
I know this is theory of the modern romanian historians.
But no, I won't reconsider. Give me a written document from the 7th-8th-9th-10th-11th-12th-13th-14th century written in latin and found in Moesia.
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Anything other then God, i need more then just Faith to believe in
Wink


Edited by czarnian - 02-Aug-2008 at 05:28
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: 02-Aug-2008 at 06:38
You only need to click the links to see Vlachs = latins. Or else what are Vlachs? What is their ethnicity?
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: 02-Aug-2008 at 08:34
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

You only need to click the links to see Vlachs = latins. Or else what are Vlachs? What is their ethnicity?
There is no evidence in those links that vlachian population in Moesia spoke latin, or preserved their latin language in the specific period that we are discussing.
I'm talking only about those vlachs between Danube and the Balkan mountain.
Furthermore I've posted a link a few pages back, which contained Vlachian royal documents
PS
It's written in slavo/bulgarian(not only with cyrilic letters) because I can read almost everything in those documents.
 


Edited by czarnian - 02-Aug-2008 at 08:35
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: 02-Aug-2008 at 09:49
Well they wouldn't be called Vlachs by the slavs (because vlach is a slavic term) if they didn't speak latin or a derived form of it.
 
So there were letters written in slavo/bulgarian. What of it?
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: 02-Aug-2008 at 10:39

Yes, why won't the slavs call them vlachs? Part of them were romanized/latinized - no doubt. But after the 6-7th century they were "slavianized". As I said there is no written document in latin left after the moesian vlachs although you say they were trachian, which makes them part of the autohton population of the Balkans - I also аgree with that ;). Vlach was also the term used regarding the shepheards right?

Even afret the creation of Ugro-Vlachia in the 14th century, we can't find any document written in latin?As a romanian member of the forum said, the first known document written in latin is from the 16th century. Why?
 
 


Edited by czarnian - 02-Aug-2008 at 10:40
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: 02-Aug-2008 at 19:48

But the slavs do call them vlachs.

 
Of course the slavs influenced the vlachs, but the thraco-roman (vlach) population was much more concentrated as the slavic migration arrived in waves and groups. For example the reason that all the folk costumes in the balkans are similar is because of the indengenious vlachs that were all over the Balkans. So the influence was just as strong if not stronger coming the other way.
 
So what if there is no written document by them? That doesn't mean they didn't exist. Absense of proof is not proof of absense. There are plenty of other people around the world which wouldn't exist if we used this same method you are using.
 
Vlach came to mean shepherd through the centuries. I don't think we can be sure it had the same connotation back then as it does today.
 
What is Urgo-Vlachia? I couldn't find anything online. Are you refering to Ardeal?
 
The reason why things weren't written in latin is because the adminstrative language because of the church was slavic. For example there is an Aromanian documents by Patriarch Fotius and Saint Naum of Orhid dating 860-870 AD. Same people, slightly different dialect. I can understand Aromanian almost completely save for some Greek loanwords i'm not familiar with.
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: 02-Aug-2008 at 20:39
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
Of course the slavs influenced the vlachs, but the thraco-roman (vlach) population was much more concentrated as the slavic migration arrived in waves and groups. For example the reason that all the folk costumes in the balkans are similar is because of the indengenious vlachs that were all over the Balkans. So the influence was just as strong if not stronger coming the other way.
 
That is a little biased, dont you think? Maybe you ment that the thracian population was much more concentrated?  
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

So what if there is no written document by them? That doesn't mean they didn't exist. Absense of proof is not proof of absense. There are plenty of other people around the world which wouldn't exist if we used this same method you are using.
 
As I said, they existed. But even if they were latinized in the begining - couple of centuries under roman rule, in the end they were slavianized. And the absence of any documents in latin is proof for that.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

What is Urgo-Vlachia? I couldn't find anything online. Are you refering to Ardeal?
 
On several occasions Mircho the Great(1386-1418) and his son Alexander refered at their country as Ugrowlachia:
 
 † Азъ иже въ Христа Бога благовѣрнии и христѡлюбивии и самодръжавни Іѡ Мирча, великыи воевода и господинь, ѡбладаѫщѹ ми и господствѡщѹ ми въсеи земи Угровлахіи и запланинскым еще же и кѫ татарскым странам и ѡбапол по въсемѹ подѹнавиѹ даже и до великаго морѣ, и милостиѫ божіеѫ и Дръстрѹ градѹ влад(а)лец, благопроизволи господство ми своим благим произволением...
 
 
† Іѡ Алеѯандръ воевода и господинь въсеи земли Уггровлахіискои, синъ Мирчѣ великааго воеводѣ, пишет господство ми Брашовѣнѡм въсѣм, великым же и малим, мнѡг(о) здравіе.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

The reason why things weren't written in latin is because the adminstrative language because of the church was slavic. For example there is an Aromanian documents by Patriarch Fotius and Saint Naum of Orhid dating 860-870 AD. Same people, slightly different dialect. I can understand Aromanian almost completely save for some Greek loanwords i'm not familiar with.
 
I'm not familiar with those documents, if your able plese post them. I'm quite intrigued by st. Naum's aromanian text.


Edited by czarnian - 02-Aug-2008 at 20:42
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: 02-Aug-2008 at 20:59
"That is a little biased, dont you think? Maybe you ment that the thracian population was much more concentrated? "
 
Well look at Russian and polish folk costumes. They're similar. If the folk costumes in the balkans were a slavic influence they would look like that. And other then the Slavs where else could those folk clothes come from? If not a Thracian population then who?
 
"As I said, they existed. But even if they were latinized in the begining - couple of centuries under roman rule, in the end they were slavianized. And the absence of any documents in latin is proof for that."

I don't deny that many Romanized Thracians, (Vlachs) which were all over the Balkans, were absorbed by a slavic population in the less defendable areas. But again absense of proof is not proof of absense. In large part the Vlach people were not organized all over the Balkans.
 
"On several occasions Mircho the Great(1386-1418) and his son Alexander refered at their country as Ugrowlachia"

Perhaps when the Hungarians had a bit of influence over the other Romanian lands. But i'm not sure what this has to do with any of that. They used slavonic in their documents again due to the church.
 
"I'm not familiar with those documents, if your able plese post them. I'm quite intrigued by st. Naum's aromanian text."
 
I'm not familiar with them either. I found them here:
 
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-Aug-2008 at 10:40
The folk costumes/garments are slavic. Maybe there is some thracian influence, or ilyrian, or bulgarian, or vlachian etc. The Balkans were and always will be a multy-cultural zone, so no wonder there are similarities in the costumes.
For me, the slavic/bulgarian influece was determinative for the first decades of existance of Vlachia. Evidences for that we can find in it's official documents, in the names of it's rullers etc.  For example here is list with  clearly slavic/bulgarian names:
 
1. Мирча I Старый (Мігсeа I cel Bătrân) 1386—31 января 1418
2. Михаил I (Mihail I, coregent al lui Mircea) 1415—31 января 1418
3. Раду II (Radu II Praznaglava) 1421; 1424—1427
4. Дан II (Dan II) 1420—1424; 1427—1431
5. Александр (Alexandru-Aldea) 1431—1433
6. Влад I Дракул (Vlad I Dracul) 1431—1433 (в борьбе с Александром); 1433—1446 (единолично)
7. Владислав II или Владислав Дая (Vladislav II sau Vladislav Dan) Январь 1446 — май, июнь 1456
8. Влад II Цепеш (Vlad II Ţepeş) Май, июнь 1456—август 1462; октябрь 1476 — январь 1477
9. Дан Претендент (Dan Pretendentul) 1459—1460
10. Раду III Красивый (Radu III Frumos) Август 1462 — начало 1474
11. Басараба II Старый или Лайота (Basaraba II cel Bătrân sau Laiotă) Начало 1474 — октябрь 1476; январь—ноябрь 1477 (или начало 1478)
12. Басараба III Молодой или Цепелюш (Basaraba III cel Tânâr sau Ţepeluş) Ноябрь 1477 (или начало 1478) — апрель, июнь 1482
13. Мирча Претендент — незаконный сын Влада Дракула (Mircea Pretendentul, fiul natural al lui Vlad Dracul) 1481
14. Влад III Монах (Vlad III Călug ărul) 1482—1496
15. Раду IV Великий (Radu IV cel Mare) 1496—1508
 
Another example are the official letters and documents that i've posted.
 
And here are two icons/frescoes of Mircho the Elder, with his name written in bulgarian:
 
Those are all evidences about the cultural influence that Bulgaria had over those territories,
for a definite period of time.
 
 
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: 11-Aug-2008 at 22:34
I don't believe the slavs had such a cultural strength to influence latins and greeks and thracians in such a way concerning the folk clothing. The Greeks borrowed from the Thracians and the Latins from the Greeks. If the folk clothing is slavic, why is the Russian/Polish/Ukrainian folk clothing different? It doesn't make sense.
 
First off writing the names of Romanian rulers in a cyrillic alphabet doesn't mean there is a bulgarian influence. We've repeated for you several times that the slavic alphabet was used because of religion. Just as poles and hungarians used latin, that doesn't mean they were latin or that italy/rome had some major influence over them. Seriously knock this bulgaric ethno centricism off especially when it's already been explained to you why slavic was used.
 
It was because of the Orthodox Church in the Balkans, not because of any specific bulgarian influence over said area.
Back to Top
Ioan-Assen II View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66 		  Quote Ioan-Assen II Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 05:25
But IF it was just the church, wouldnt that mean that Romanians should use Greek (as Bulgaria did for 5-10 years after becoming Christian and before accepting the Slavic language for official? I think u ve had other options and I think u underestimate the Bulgarian influence. That influence was quite big and it was due to the fact that part of Romania have been in the Bulgarian empire for a long time. Sometimes Vlachs played vital role in that empire, like it was around Assens time...
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: 12-Aug-2008 at 05:56
Well if you know anything concerning the theological vocab in Romanian you will see latin, greek and slavic elements in the words. There is also the difference in how Romanians as a people adopted Christianity to the Bulgarians. When the Romanians became to exist as the ethnic group that they are (dacian/latin) they were already Christian. So your question really doesn't apply.
 
I'm not denying the slavic influence in Romania at all. But my point is it was a Church influence not a bulgarian one. Again it was a vlach/bulgarian empire not just a bulgarian empire. If anything the influence was stronger the other way around. Bulgars mixed with Romanized Thracians (which is what Romanians are). They adopted the Christian Faith which was the faith of the Romans at the time. My folk clothing example is still up there too.
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: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:17
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

I don't believe the slavs had such a cultural strength to influence latins and greeks and thracians in such a way concerning the folk clothing. The Greeks borrowed from the Thracians and the Latins from the Greeks. If the folk clothing is slavic, why is the Russian/Polish/Ukrainian folk clothing different? It doesn't make sense.
 
First off writing the names of Romanian rulers in a cyrillic alphabet doesn't mean there is a bulgarian influence. We've repeated for you several times that the slavic alphabet was used because of religion. Just as poles and hungarians used latin, that doesn't mean they were latin or that italy/rome had some major influence over them. Seriously knock this bulgaric ethno centricism off especially when it's already been explained to you why slavic was used.
 
It was because of the Orthodox Church in the Balkans, not because of any specific bulgarian influence over said area.
 
You didn't explained anything. I've seen only pretentious nonsense like "evidence of absence is not evidence of proof".
 
And how is it possible that a foreign, different language that the descendants of
the roman - latin colonists couldn't understand, was used for centuries in a institution
as important as the church? And I've supplide a great deal of wlachian documents, not administrative or church related, that were in bulgarian( if you prefer in slavic-bulgarian, church-slavic etc.).
 
I'm not talking about romanian rulers, I'm talking of the ugro-wlachian and wlachian ones. And yes most of their names if not all, are slavic/bulgarian. I want evidence that slavic was used over bulgarian, that there was some major difference between slavic and bulgarian in this region or era, and from where did the non-bulgarian slavic language infiltrated those territories, where did it came from? When were those territories under serbian rule or under the rule of another slavic state?
 
When you give me any evidence about those thigs I may reconsider my current statement.
 
Good day.
 
ps
as for the folk costumes, there is great resemblence between bulgarian and chuvashian folk garments and costumes. Are the chuvashian latinised thracians also... cough... romanian... cough LOL
 
pss
Again it was a vlach/bulgarian empire not just a bulgarian empire
Man you are killing me with those ignorant statements LOLClap
Give me one document that states that the new formed coutry was named Wlacho-Bulgaria or Bugaro-Wlachia. One evidence that the wlachian population south of Danube concidered themsleves something different from the bulgarians( slavs, bulgars, greek, kuman etc.). Official domestic documents in which the empire is called Wlachia, wlachian or something. Any tzar beyond Joan that was named "tzar of bulgars and wlachs"?
 
 
There is also the difference in how Romanians as a people adopted Christianity to the Bulgarians. When the Romanians became to exist as the ethnic group that they are (dacian/latin) they were already Christian. So your question really doesn't apply.
 
Another bold statement! Where is your evidence for that? What are the documents on which you're basing such an asumption?
 


Edited by czarnian - 12-Aug-2008 at 06:42
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: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:33
"You didn't explained anything. I've seen only pretentious nonsense like "evidence of absence is not evidence of proof"."
 
I didn't use that anywhere in my last post.
 
"And how is it possible that a foreign, different language that the descendants of
the roman - latin colonists couldn't understand, was used for centuries in a institution
as important as the church? And I've supplide a great deal of wlachian documents, not administrative or church related, that were in bulgarian( if you prefer in slavic-bulgarian, church-slavic etc.)."
 
The Church in Romania wasn't as organized and due to the political and military situation in the Balkans had a hard time communicating with Constantinople. So when church slavonic was used in the balkans, the Romanians used that as well.
 
And there are also documents in latin from hungarians and poles, again neither one was latin as a people.
 
"I'm not talking about romanian rulers, I'm talking of the ugro-wlachian and wlachian ones. And yes most of their names if not all, are slavic/bulgarian. I want evidence that slavic was used over bulgarian, that there was some major difference between slavic and bulgarian in this region or era, and from where did the non-bulgarian slavic language infiltrated those territories, where did it came from? When were those territories under serbian rule or under the rule of another slavic state?"
 
Wallachians are Romanians. Wallachian is a term we never used for ourselves. It is a germanic/slav word for latin people. I'm not saying church slavonic and bulgarian are different, I am saying that the Romanians used that language in administration due to the church, not because of some "bulgarian influence." Sorry but there never really was much of that in history ever. It wasn't Bulgarians influencing Romanians, it was church slavonic influencing both people. It was just that the Romanians were a more defined ethnic group at the time with a more defined culture (as a Roman) and didn't melt into the slavic people migrating.
 
"as for the folk costumes, there is great resemblence between bulgarian and chuvashian folk garments and costumes. Are the chuvashian latinised thracians also... cough... romanian... cough LOL"
 
No, that is just an example of the turkic history of the bulgarian people. No secret there. Bulgars were Turkic. They also lived and were ruled directly under the Turks for hundreds of years. So no surprise there.
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: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:35
"Another bold statement! Where is your evidence for that? What are the documents on which you're basing such an asumption?"
 
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: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:47
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

"Another bold statement! Where is your evidence for that? What are the documents on which you're basing such an asumption?"
 
 
Wiki is not a reliable source, you know that. And brother, i've never seen so much romanian, not wlachian, propaganda on one place.  The same BS you can find in any bulgarian nationalistic article, which asumes that bulgarians are also of thracian origin, and that were more christian than Jesus himself.
But the facts are that the bulgarian church was established in the 9th century and the wlachian one in the 14th.


Edited by czarnian - 12-Aug-2008 at 06:51
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: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:50
Actually it's Orthodox Wiki, and it's run by Orthodox members. And what is propaganda? Name a single specific part?
 
It just seems you don't like the facts because they don't fit this ethno centric Bulgarianism ( gj ussr ) version of history you learned.
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: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:54
What evidence is there, that there were monasteries and churches in the territories of moder Romania? But those territories were part of the Roman empire, then under ghot rule, slavic, ERE rule, part of the Bulgarian empire, Hungarian, and then in the 14th century are included in the first wlachian state.

Edited by czarnian - 12-Aug-2008 at 06:58
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: 12-Aug-2008 at 06:56
Scroll down, you see pictures. Also why are you ignoring the vocabulary facts brought up in the article?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910 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 0.109 seconds.