• This topic has 6 voices and 10 replies.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #345942

    Anonymous

    Officially known as the Empire of Bulgarians and Vlachs, it was also known under different variants including the Bulgarian-Vlach Empire, the Bulgarian-Wallachian Empire or the Romanian-Bulgarian Empire. What was it really?

    #423581

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Officially known as the Empire of Bulgarians and Vlachs, it was also known under different variants including the Bulgarian-Vlach Empire, the Bulgarian-Wallachian Empire or the Romanian-Bulgarian Empire. What was it really?

    Wikipedia says this:

    "The most used name by contemporaries was Bulgaria. During Kaloyan's reign the state was sometimes called as both of Bulgarians and Vlachs. Pope Innocent III[3] and other foreigners such as the Latin emperor Henry[4] mentioned the state as Bulgaria and Bulgarian Empire in official letters."

    Kaloyan is one of the very first tsars, so maybe that is how it was refered to at the very beginning, however, it is hardly the case during the 2 centuries which followed.
    So i guess the short answer is No.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bulgarian_Empire

    (On a side note, maybe it's stupid but why do we call it tsardom while other people called it empire?)

    #423582

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Wikipedia says this:

    "The most used name by contemporaries was Bulgaria. During Kaloyan's reign the state was sometimes called as both of Bulgarians and Vlachs. Pope Innocent III[3] and other foreigners such as the Latin emperor Henry[4] mentioned the state as Bulgaria and Bulgarian Empire in official letters."

    Kaloyan is one of the very first tsars, so maybe that is how it was refered to at the very beginning, however, it is hardly the case during the 2 centuries which followed.
    So i guess the short answer is No.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bulgarian_Empire

    (On a side note, maybe it's stupid but why do we call it tsardom while other people called it empire?)

    Tsar is a Slavicized form of Cesar, just as Kaiser is a Germanized form of the same.

    Earlier Bulgarian states were known as Khanates or Khaganates though, before Slavicization of the Asiatic Bulgars.

    #423583

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Officially known as the Empire of Bulgarians and Vlachs, it was also known under different variants including the Bulgarian-Vlach Empire, the Bulgarian-Wallachian Empire or the Romanian-Bulgarian Empire. What was it really?

    Greetings, Makedonec :)
    Bulgaria was an empire and the empire is consisted from different tribes. The wallachian people formed large part from the territory of the empire, so these people were considered important and also a large percentage from the population of the empire. That's why they are mentioned – if you don't keep the important people close to you they might separate from you. We know this painfully well. The empire was called simply Bulgaria, the 'tsar of bulgarians and wallachi' thing is part of the titles of our tsars, it's a demonstration of power and control, but that does not mean that the wallachi were part of the high class. Tsar Simeon the first, stated, that the greeks were also part of the first Bulgarian empire, due his expansion south. But that wasn't sensed the same way by the greeks hehe. It's all politics.
    By the way, tsar is not proven to be caesar. There was a title called "SHAR" used by the akkadians, and title SEREN used by the pelasgians (but the greek alphabet don't have Ц so who know how it might sounded back then).
    The usage of the khan title is not proven too. During the 44-89 era this theory was nationalised. But the real title is – KANAS U BIGI which some translate as – Knyaz in God (so the kanas is merely a form of knyaz according to some scholars). The old bulgars were indo-european tribe, similar to the sarmatians and the alans, that is what we learn those days.

    #423584

    Anonymous

    According to the rules of the Bulgarian section, we are not allowed to discuss the origins of proto-Bulgars so I will withhold my response….welcome to the forum by the way :)

    #423585

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    According to the rules of the Bulgarian section, we are not allowed to discuss the origins of proto-Bulgars so I will withhold my response….welcome to the forum by the way :)

    Thank you. :)

    #423586

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Thank you. :)

    Vlach was never the official language of the Second Bulgarian State, nor was it for the First.
    There aren't much arguments to say it was Bulgaro-Vlach state.

    #423587

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Tsar is a Slavicized form of Cesar, just as Kaiser is a Germanized form of the same.

    His question was more along the line of "Why do we call it "tsardom" *on English"? It would be like the Germans calling it Keiserreich on English."

    Quote:
    Earlier Bulgarian states were known as Khanates or Khaganates though, before Slavicization of the Asiatic Bulgars.

    Actually, as Dulo mentioned, it's not known how the early Bulgar state formations were called in regards to the ruler's title – "khan" has not been reported in the primary historical sources (though there are a few implications for it), and "qagan" is mentioned only three times, in Western sources, after the conquest of the Avar Khaganate, thus it might be an incorporation of the Avar title into the Bulgar titulature. Otherwise, most of the Bulgar epigraphic material, having been written almost exclusively on Greek, mostly uses the Greek word "archon" for the Bulgar rulers, with the noteworthy several exceptions being the still-undeciphered "kanasubigi" (which, again, appears after the conquest of the Avars and some relate to the other Avar title of "kanizauci") – some translate it through Turkic, others through Iranic and some – even through Slavic ("knyaz u Bogu").
    Also, it's unclear what "Asiatic Bulgars" you're speaking about, considering the only reliable informations we have on the Bulgars are *all* in the European boundaries, starting with the Pontic-Caucasian area (with the exception of one early migration of a part of the Bulgars into Armenia, where they were eventually assimilated) and moving westwards and northwards (for the two main Bulgar branches). Where they came from before that is unknown. IF they came from anywhere before that at all – I personally think that the ethnogenesis of the earliest Bulgars, as such, lies in the afore-mentioned Pontic-Caucasian area. Which, of course, doesn't negate the fact that the possible constituent tribes would've at various points came from somewhere else, be it from Siberia, Pamir or somewhere else.
    Anyway, as you said – that's for another thread (as far as I see, that discussion isn't forbidden, though correct me if I'm wrong).

    Quote:
    The wallachian people formed large part from the territory of the empire, so these people were considered important and also a large percentage from the population of the empire.

    They were also the ones who started and carried out the rebellion, which led to the creation of the state, at least according to the sources. The early Assenids were also Vlachs, again according to the sources. It's another matter that there's a dispute between the Bulgarian and Romanian historians whether the name "Vlach" was limited only to the ethnic Vlachs at the time or it encompassed all Moesians (as Niketas Choniates mentions) and thus all peoples living between the Balkan Mountains and the Danube. In any case, whatever "Vlach" meant, I agree that the ethnic, Romance-speaking Vlachs were an important part of the life of the state in the first three decades or so, even though they pretty much disappear right after that and are replaced in the Bulgarian titulature by the Greeks (i.e. it's "emperor of Bulgarians and Greeks" again). One possible explanation, though not the only one, was a prolonged (spanning several decades, thus a natural, non-organized one), but massive migration of Vlachs through this region at the end of the 12th century, which would've further stirred the things up in the area, leading to the said rebellion against the Byzantine authorities.

    Quote:
    By the way, tsar is not proven to be caesar. There was a title called "SHAR" used by the akkadians, and title SEREN used by the pelasgians (but the greek alphabet don't have Ц so who know how it might sounded back then).

    It's quite proven that "tsar" comes from "tsyasar", which comes from the *medieval* Latin "caesar". Note also the accent on medieval Latin, considering "caesar" in ancient Latin was pronounced very much like the Greek "kaisar" [кайсар in Latin, кесар in medieval Greek]. Thus the most peculiar double-use of that name-title in the Bulgarian language – the higher, imperial цясарь taken from the Latin-speakers and the lower, eventually non-imperial кесарь taken from the Greeks. Another interesting thing is how "tsyasar" (and its shortened by the time of the Second Bulgarian Empire form "tsar") and the Byzantine "basileos" share very much the same selective use of their appliance – for their own emperors (Bulgarian (and later also Serbian and even later also Russian) tsar and Byzantine basileos respectively) and for the ancient and/or Biblical *kings* (f.e. "tsar David" or "the Lydian tsar", but not "the tsar of the English" or even "the tsar of the Germans/Holy Romans/Franks", although the latter was an emperor himself as well).

    Quote:
    Vlach was never the official language of the Second Bulgarian State, nor was it for the First.
    There aren't much arguments to say it was Bulgaro-Vlach state.

    Well, Tsar Kaloyan did call himself "Emperor of Bulgarians and Vlachs", and so did his archbishop Vasilii for that matter. You can check this part of Wiki's article on Kaloyan for a quick view on the question, but in any case – there are arguments in favour of the Vlach thesis, even if there are arguments in favour of other theses as well.
    That's what makes it one of the most interesting and puzzling questions for me. And, unfortunately, one of the primest examples of a lack of a serious and *unbiased* Bulgarian historiography on the matter. Only recently I've seen one Bulgarian historian, one living in the States at that, who seems to be breaking up that shell of "Bulgarian purity" of the older historians and admitting to the plausibility of an actual Vlach participation in the matter. Hopefully, we'd soon have younger, better and actually objective historians, who'd be able to discuss freely on all the possibly "problematic" topics, without worrying more about losing "national battles", which don't really belong in the historical science (at least as long as history strives to become a science and not "just" a humanitarian art).

    #423588

    Anonymous

    Such debates should be avoided. We will never have one mind on issues seen from the present perspectives. That is how I see what it was 1000 years ago and I argue that 2nd Bulgarian Empire was actually 1st Slavic Empire in essence. Some say that it was Macedonian Empire considering the location and the core constituted by the Macedonian Slavs. I am in favor to call it 1st Slavic Empire because that was what it was.

    #423589

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Some say that it was Macedonian Empire considering the location and the core constituted by the Macedonian Slavs. I am in favor to call it 1st Slavic Empire because that was what it was.

    Please, do not troll in this section. :)

    This could be true only in your delusional dreams and maybe in those of a few lecturers in the skopian faculty of history. Any sourced book or encyclopedia disproves you, if you care to open it.

    #423590

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    and I argue that 2nd Bulgarian Empire was actually 1st Slavic Empire in essence. Some say that it was Macedonian Empire considering the location and the core constituted by the Macedonian Slavs.

    I'm afraid I don't quite understand you. Concerning location, the Second Bulgarian Empire for the bigger part of its existence didn't have control over Macedonia (it had so only in the times of Tsar Kaloyan, Tsar Ioan Asen II and Tsar Konstantin Tih Asen (the latter being a noble from Skopie himself), as far as I remember). Probably less than half of its existence. Thus, its core (Tarnovgrad) was also hardly constituted by Macedonian Slavs – if anything, concerning minorities, it probably constituted more of Vlachs and Cumans, especially the latter.
    Perhaps you're mixing it with the First Bulgarian Empire, of which one of the two main centres was indeed exactly Macedonia (i.e. Pliska-Preslav on one hand and Ohrid on the other)?

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

5 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Glockamole
  • TypowaPolskaKobieta
  • Tujev
  • kony97
  • haver25