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)
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)
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)
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)~
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)~
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)
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).