Talk:Kingdom of Bulgarians and Vlachs

This is ludicrous. This so-called "Romanian-Bulgarian kingdom" was actually a part of the timeline of the Second Bulgarian kingdom!! This is the first time I've seen such an absurdity in Wikipedia?! Even if you look at List of extinct states, you'll see that the Second Bulgarian Kingdom lasted from 1186 to 1396. Please someone explain this ridiculous article. --webkid 06:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this name is better this name (NPOV) because:

• The name used in their documents was the "Caloiohannes, lord of the Bulgars and Vlachs" [1]
• The ruling dinasty was Romanian. "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." [2]

Romanians which had Cuman names and who claimed in all their correspondence to be Bulgarians???:-))) Yeah, right VMORO 21:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• It included Romanian lands and much of the population was of Romanian ethnicity. (that was written by a crussader in a description of the lands toward Palestine)

Are all states which at some point have included Romanian lands in their territory called in Romanian history "Romanian states". Well, one gets to learn something new everyday, the Russian and the Austrian Empires were also Romanian:-)))VMORO 21:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just because the capital was in Bulgaria, does not means it had any links with the previous Bulgarian Kingdom. If you think that anything is wrong with the article, just contest it, I'll try to give an explanation. Bogdan | Talk 08:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and just because the only language used in the state was Bulgarian, the state was certainly not Bulgarian. And the fact that Kaloyan claimed continuity with Simeon and Peter, and the fact that the Church claimed continuity with the Bulgarian Church from the 1st Bulgarian state, that does not matter, either. They were all Romanians at heart, we know that. VMORO 21:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bulgars are not same thing as Bulgarians

ofcourse Bulgars are not the same thing as Bulgarians, but Caloian Asen was "imperator blachorum et bulgarorum", so the question is: when do we start speaking of Bulgarians instead of Bulgars ? Criztu 21:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bulgars are the Turkic people; Bulgarians are the Slavic people. We'd better not mix them up ;-) Bogdan | Talk 21:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

since Caloian was Emperor of Vlachs and Bulgars, should we pay attention to this term of "Bulgar", or should we consider them as Bulgarians ? Criztu 21:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We use Bulgarian, otherwise there would be some confusion. In some Hungarian chronicles, the Romanians were named "pastores romanorum", but we don't write in Romanian history [[Romanians|Romans]]. Bogdan | Talk 21:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

but "Blachi ac pastores romanorum" means literally "the Vlachs aka the shepherds of the romans" as oposed to "Imperator Blachorum et Bulgarorum" which means "Emperor of the Vlachs and of the Bulgars" Criztu 22:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bogdan this is wrong. Bulgars were the founders of the Bulgarian state on the Balkans. The main mix even back then was of Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians. They became the bulk of the Bulgarian ethnos. There were later migrations of Pechenegs, Kumans and Uzes, just like in Wallachia, Besarabia and so on. Today, Bulgarians do speak a Slavic language. This is as far as your point can be extended. (Kaloyan)

The Kingdom of Bulgarians and Vlachs and the Empire of Romanians, Austrians, Hungarians, etc.

1)The use of the term: This Kingdom you are talking about had actually a name and it was Bulgaria, this is the way it was addressed by Pope Innocentius and the Hungarian King. By the use of the term above you are essentially trying to launch the idea of a dualistic state of both Bulgarians and Vlachs. This is not the case - the Bulgarians ruled over the Vlachs - who lived in Wallachia. The language used was only Bulgarian, not Bulgarian and Romanian. With the proclamation of the autonomy of the Bulgarian church in 1186, continuity was claimed with the Bulgarian Church of the First Bulgarian Empire, the church was called Bulgarian, not Bulgarian and Romanian. In the correspondence between Pope Innocentius and Kaloyan, Kaloyan claimed he was Bulgarian and he descended from the Tsars Simeon and Peter, not that he was Vlach and stemmed from Butzebuba or whatever you call him. In the few preserved documents from that time (for example, Boril's Synodic), it is talked how Asen and Peter saved the BULGARIAN people from the yoke of the ROMANS, the Vlachs are not even mentioned.

That the Vlachs were utilised by almost all early rulers of the 2Bulgarian Empire during the military expeditions against the Byzantines - that's certain. That they were a leading element in the state - that's anyting but true. They lived in Wallachia, which was a dependency (probably vassal) of the Bulgarian state. The first primate of the Bulgarian Church was called in 1203 Primate of Bulgaria and Wallachia, several kings from the dynasty were called Emperor of Bulgaria and Wallachia. In all medieval descriptions of Tarnovo, we get mention of Bulgarians, of Armenians, of Jews, of Franks, even of Greeks. Not a word, however, about Vlachs. Why? Because they lived in Wallachia, that's why. And your argument about Bulgars and Bulgarians is rather silly - there is a differentiation about the two terms in newer times, previously only Bulgars was used.

What you two are trying to do is to misinterpret and abuse the terminology. In many cases throughout the Middle Ages, kingdoms and empires extended over ethnic borders. This does not automatically lead to the adoption of the names of all nationalities which lived there, it is the dominant nationality which gives the name of the state. If the state is dualistic, then both names are used and the changes in the name of the Austrian Empire before and after 1848 are a good example of that. Your state of Bulgarians and Vlachs is only a wishful thinking. And if you call the Austrian Empire "Kingdom of Romanians, Austrians, Hungarians, etc." because it also included Romanian lands, that's your own problem, don't expect the world to agree. Nikolae Yorga is hovering around, I can see that well. VMORO 21:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)~

i agree, the Vlach-Bulgar Empire/second Bulgarian Empire belongs to history of Bulgaria, since the capital was in Bulgaria. the little i know is that no Romanian Monarchs ever claimed Asens as their ancestors. I wonder if any later Bulgarian monarch claimed Asens as their ancestors. BUT, the name of Caloian, Ionitsa(if this was his name), is exclusive to romanians, neither slavs, nor bulgars nor cumans nor else had or have this male given name but Romanians... as far as i know -- Criztu 22:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yoanitsa and Kaloyan mean the same, dear, - small Ioann (small Ivan) - as far as I can remember - but I'll check. And how frequent are the names Asen and Belgun (Tsar Ioann [or Ivan] Asen Belgun) in Romania:-))))? Cause they are certainly anything but Vlach names. On the other hand, they can easily be Bulgar. VMOROVMORO 22:18, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Ionitsa is a exclusive romanian male given name diminutiv, i know Caloian (Calo="beautiful" in greek, but also Calluin is from latin Calende, and means, first born) is Ionitsa... deer :)) -- Criztu 22:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear, the ending -itsa is well used in Greek and Bulgarian as a diminutive with names like Dimitsa, for example. And I checked last night - Kaloyan means Handsome Ivan. The assumption of a Latin origin of the name is stupid - he was the youngest son, dear. VMOROVMORO 12:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

point is, the male given name diminiutiv Ionitsa is exclusive to romanians, if you judge in terms of "as the name Asen indicates, they were of mixed barbarian origin, most likely cumano-bulgarian" -- Criztu 14:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kaloyan might have well been a greek interpretation of the guy's name, as Calvin, Calluinn, Collin, Calin, Kalin, and the exclusive romanian Caloian are found from Ireland to Romania and Bulgaria, and some of them have latin etymology. -- Criztu 14:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the ending -itsa can be also found in Chicheni-Itsa, if you look only for an -itsa ending -- Criztu 14:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Darling, you are getting a bit entangled in thé etymology and the assumptions. You forget namely that Kaloyan has also left Bulgarian documents and material evidence - for example his ring with inscription(transcribed, I don't have Cyrillic letters on this computer) "Kaloaynov prasten", or the copper seal with inscription "Kaloyan, Tsar na balgarite" (Kaloyan, Emperor of the Bulgarians). The name Kaloyan is not the corrupted Greek pronunciation of Kalvin, this was the way he called himself VMORO VMORO 14:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kaloyan, this was the way he called himself - so one can assume the name Kaloyan is not a greek one, but in the language of this "mixed barbarian, most probably cumano-bulgarian" ruler. as i told you, both Caloian (ritual object representing a human, cf. sl. 'kalenu'; also a romanian name) and Ionitsa are exclusive romanian male given names. do u have a cumano-bulgarian etymology for Kaloyan ? or do you want to say this Ionitsa spoke greek, and called him self as Kaloyan in a greek language ? and did he use greek only as a diplomatic language, or was greek his language, and if so, why is his seal written in cyrilic ? also the "Ioo" signature on his seal is to be found on the Vlach rulers, as in Iw(Ioo) Mircea cel Batran, or Iw(Ioo) Stefan cel Mare-- Criztu 15:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are babbling - half the proper names in Bulgaria are from Greek origin. Kaloyan's brother, Peter, has also been called Kalopeter (the handsome Peter). And the diminutive -itsa is still used by a number of languages on the Balkans. VMORO 02:46, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)~

you are avoiding my question: romanian Caloian (from slavic 'kalenu') and Ionitsa were, and still are romanian names only. Can we assume that "as the names Kaloyan and Ionitsa indicate(add the later Ticu Asen and Micu Asen), the guy was of mixed barbarian origin, most probable Vlach-Slav origin" ? -- Criztu 09:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, there's another brother of them called "Borilă", which sounds pretty Romanian :-) Bogdan | Talk 09:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• i hope the argument is not about the etymology of Asen, but where the article should be put, as a separate article, in the Asen article, or in Bulgarian History article -- Criztu 22:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• the Austrian Empire DID changed its name to Austria-Hungary, at least this is how it is treated by modern historians -- Criztu 22:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)~

• and then, if the Asen were Cumans, why didn't they ever claimed to be Cumanians, or why didn't Caloian styled himself as Imperator Cumanorum et Bulgarorum, but Imperator Blachorum et Bulgarorum ? -- Criztu 22:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  The name "Asen" is most likely Cuman. (just like Basarab or Odobescu) However, by the time of Ioanitsa, most Cumans were already assimilated by either the Vlachs or the Bulgarians. Bogdan | Talk 22:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

as far as i know, the Cumanians existed as a political entity in Valahia until 1241, when the Mongol invasion dismantled their empire, and they took refuge in Hungary -- Criztu 22:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• and then, if Vlach meant "shepherd", is there any other example of a Ruler to style himself as "Emperor of the Shepherds and the Bulgars" ? -- Criztu 22:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Good point! :-) Bogdan | Talk 22:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is another take on the name of Kaloyan. According to the ancient Bulgarian callendar he was born in the year of the Dragon (in Bulgarian "Hala"). There is also a dragon inscribed on his ring. The more important question is why would a Bulgarian who despised the Byzantines use a Greek name? Kaloyan, means "Beautiful Ioan" in Greek. Another point must be kept in mind: the whole dynasty of Kaloyan was known as Kalomanovtsi and his brother Peter was also called Kalo-Peter. There is a Bulgarian folk song that starts with a "Kalimanko ..." I have always wondered whether it has anything to do with this name(s).