This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It somehow struck me as an unusual representation to use a map of the empire in its most progressed territorial decline and invasion by the Osman forces in the introduction of the article. For example look at the article on the Roman Empire. The map in the introduction shows the empire in its greatest territorial extent, not in the years where it covered only 1/2 of the Italian peninsula. The same goes for the Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire or any of the empires in wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires) Should we consider consistency and get a more representative map showing the empire at its greatest territorial extent ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.135.71 ( talk) 03:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
According to this map, Constantinople is in the middle of the Howard Stern Sea and the Danube spills inland. Someone should clean it up. :-) bogdan 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
proposal: add more maps, maybe from Ivan Assen's era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.0.94 ( talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The modern Bulgarian state is 110,000 km squared, so how can this empire be 7 times as large? Any dumb nationalists want to defend this stupidity? Tourskin ( talk) 04:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we have a citation from a reliable source in English, please? It strikes me as dubious, which is why I added a {{ dubious}} tag. Thank you. El_C 07:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious that the 1st Bulgarian Empire was annexed at 1018, the second was estamblished 170 years later. So it is historically inaccurate to claim that the 2nd was the succesor of the first, or the first was the preceseccor of the 2nd. I hope this explanation is simple on the issue. Any contradicting arguments (like time travel potentiality in 11-12th century) will be interesting.
Same situtation happens with the link to History of Bulgaria (1878-1946). Why such time gaps? From 15th century to 1878?
To summarize the right sequence is:
1st Bulgarian Empire (680–1018)-Byzantine Empire (1018-1185)-2nd Bulgarian Empire (1185–1422)- Ottoman Bulgaria(1422-1878)-Modern Bulgaria (1878-today). Alexikoua ( talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added "citation needed" after this part. I'd rather see some evidence that the nobility was being KILLED, and not DEPORTED to somewhere, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaceInTheSand ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Gligan affirmed that "it is not synonymous with the term Second Bulgarian Empire, because it can only be used for the first years of the existence of a coutry which existed as a single state for over 200 years.". However we need a source for that, because in its absence, it represents only WP:OR. ( SamiraJ ( talk) 06:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC))
Any other than Romanian sources for Romanian Bulgarian Empire? Slovakian historians could consider the Roman Empire as Slovakian Roman Empire and will be this notable for the article Roman Empire(nothing against Slovak historians, just for example)? On the same way the opinion and the way the Romanian historians transform the state's name and call it is neither notable or reliable for the aricle Second Bulgarian Empire. An medieval manuscript or wether text from the period is needed to confirm that the term Romanian Bulgarian Empire term existed, otherwise it becomes only a new created POV and that the Romanian historography use the POV in present-day doesn't matter for the article. Dinner for three ( talk) 13:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, a personal opinion from me. It is not only up to Sources. Please mind the historical context. One should not look for national institutes in feudal times. Positively, there were local markets, ethnic cultures and endogamy in the medieval period, but no nationwide concepts of general education, social policies or representative sports teams as it is today. Therefore it was not Vlacho-Bulgaria, but the State of bulgars and vlachs, that was ruled over by a certain Dynasty. And as it was a monarchy, and the monarch was the earthly prince, his subordinates always tried to emulate (and eventually replace) him. This means that family and bloodline were more important than tongue and merit.
The Nomenclature paragraph in this article is just fine and sufficient in this version ID: 1030307560. Litev ( talk) 07:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm adding here the opinion of a Russian historian, A.A. Vasiliev in his book “History of the Byzantine Empire” that might help in this discussion:
I've just reverted a bunch of edits by User:Dinner for three:
— OwenBlacker ( Talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I apologize. I didn't knew for the script standarts, but the Principality of Bulgaria as successor should be back. That it was not immediate but logical successor is POV, it was called Bulgaria and used the same language as official. The fact that the two countries were Bulgaria is well-known among the sources and this should be back.
For Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars by Britannica, that was disclaimed in the talk by historical letters, texts, etc. It was only used during Kaloyan's reign altough even then in official letters the state was called Bulgaria or Bulgarian Empire, this name has no place in the intro beacause it was only in a period and not in the entire exsistence of the state. Dinner for three ( talk) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I just deleted the "Romanian-Bulgarian" empire since the word "romanian" comes centuries later and as well is not relevant how the modern Romanian historiography perceives the name of the country, but how is called from the historians and in other official documents in that age, not in the 21th century. 212.10.94.203 ( talk) 21:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was called only Bulgaria - "Second Bulgarian" is to separate it chronologically. Please, avoid dubious interpretations of history. The Romanian-Bulgarian proposal has only one source, which is from 2001. You have to find credible historical sources for your statement. 212.10.94.203 ( talk) 23:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
All of which are from Romanians and none one of them dates back to historical sources. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalism. 212.10.94.203 ( talk) 11:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all the source itself is not credible and has no historical evidence for the country being called "Romanian". There were no "Romanians" at that time. Secondly, the Romanian viewpoint, being understandably biased and nationalistic, should not be here because:
212.10.94.203 ( talk) 13:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is an argument, because the truth is only one, not two. Hence when 99% of the modern international historians as well 99% of the historical figures in the middle ages refer the country as Bulgarian, there is no point of putting focus on the 1% of biased Romanian interpretations. It does not matter how you call the country in Romania today. Point is how was called in the Middle-Ages. 130.226.139.247 ( talk) 13:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The denomination is also used by the European Centre of Historical Studies Venice 79.117.151.226 ( talk) 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the totally unsustainable paragraph concerning the survival of the Bulgarian nobility and population north of Danube after the end of the 14th century, it's complete fiction (of course, it had no quoted sources). By that time, Wallachia was well constituted as a state, and was under the rule of Mircea, covering the territory from the Iron Gates of Danube to the Danube Delta and later the Black Sea. The idea of a Bulgarian 'semi-state' within the Wallachian state is both unprecedented and a nonsense.
My edit was reverted, but I found further evidence of Bulgaria being a vassal of Serbia: The Cambridge Medieval History ("But for the ruler (Dushan) of so vast realm, the title of King seemed insignificant, specially as his vassal, the ruler of Bulgaria, bore the great name of Tsar."). FkpCascais ( talk) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Another source. It says: "...including (talking of Dushan Empire) Bosnia, the Herzegovina, Macedonia, and the vassal State of Bulgaria herself." FkpCascais ( talk) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I apologise Gligan for not answering earlier. Here are some sources claiming vassalship. I am posting here only English language sources from neutral authors and the search is difficult because of the number of results for Bulgaria and Serbia becoming vassals of the Ottomans.
It also may be possible that the participation of Bulgarian Patriarch Simeon at the coronation of Tsar Dushan was not in a sense "to help" like suggested in one article here, but as him recognizing Dushan souvereignity. FkpCascais ( talk) 03:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
During a requested GOCE copy-edit; I saw at first instances of American orthography, but as I worked down the article I started running into British spellings. Since the article's subject has strong links to neither country, I took the first variant, AmEng, as the dominant variant in use there. There's no note on the talk page and I'm not prepared to trawl the archive to discover the first historical variant. The requester Gligan ( talk · contribs) has told me his/her preference is BrEng, to which I'll change the article when I've finished my c/e in about two days from my timestamp. Is there any reason I shouldn't do this? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an anthropological distance between the ethnicities living in the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire, regardless of the preservation of "Bulgarian" ethnonym. This should be specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianisv ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I've added a citation request to the following claim: "A successor to the First Bulgarian Empire". However, if someone doesn't back this up soon, I will change it to "dubious" claim. Adrianisv ( talk) 04:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This page has been subjected to a number of minor changes throughout time by dubious users (Bulgarian nationalists), who removed the multiethnic emphasasis of the state, replacing all mentions of vlachs and cumans participating in battles - as described by Byzantine chronicles - with "Bulgarians". Adrianisv ( talk) 04:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Differentiate between Bulgarian ethnic identity and Bulgarian civic identity in the first paragraphs of the article. Mentioning of Vlachs and Cumans in battles; mentioning on the Vlach origin of Asen dynasty -- Steven Runciman. A History of the Crusades (page 13); George Finlay, A History of Greece, Cambridge University Press, 2014 Edition, p.231 Adrianisv ( talk) 05:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Source, please. I gave you sources citing Byzantine and Franks chroniclers on Vlach origin of Anastestilor Dynasty. Other sources, citing most recognized contemporary Byzantine source, Nicetas Choniates -- Dimitri Korobeinikov, A broken mirror: the Kipchak world in the thirteenth century. In the volume: The other Europe from the Middle Ages, Edited by Florin Curta, Brill 2008, p. 394; Dimitri Korobeinikov, A broken mirror: the Kipchak world in the thirteenth century; Victor Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic nomads north of the Danube Delta from the tenth to the mid-thirteenth century, 2009, ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5, 9004175369 Adrianisv ( talk) 07:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
If you don't back up your claims, I will go further with my edits. Adrianisv ( talk) 06:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
As for you trying to force a succession between First and Second Bulgarian Empire, refer to the issue opened above, "Removing the information regarding Second Bulgarian Empire as the sucessor of the First Bulgarian Empire". I hope you understand no one will let this exaggerated statement pass. There is no connection between Turkic Bulgars and Slavic Bulgarians, other than the ethnonym. Adrianisv ( talk) 07:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I see you are bothered by the changes I've made. If you'd like to edit something out, go ahead and refer to my changes one by one. The changes I've made consists of cited, verified information presented in the following sections of the Wikipedia page. The alternative name "Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars" and the multiethnic character of the state are documented in the Wikipedia page. Adrianisv ( talk) 07:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
That proves nothing, except another possibility of him being a Vlach ruler (Romanslayer) that ruled over the Bulgarians. In any case, I don't see his ethnicity disputed, but the subject is avoided altogether. "Romanslayer" and "Bulgarslayer" are definetly not a valid link between First and Second Bulgarian Empire, no matter how much you force it. And I did read the article. Thanks. Vlach-Bulgarian Empire is an alternative name used in international historiography. Adrianisv ( talk) 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
First of all, the source is in Bulgarian, the punctuation is definetly not okay and the text has many, unnecessary explanations in the paranthesis which alter the content of the letter and add to the Bulgarian nationalistic bias. If the letter is real and correctly translated, it doesn't change the fact Bulgarian was used as a civic identity. Again, the Anes dynasty is of Vlach origin, according to two Byzantine chronicles (one being Nicetas Choniates, the most recognized contemporary medieval source) and one Franks chronicle. I won't post the sources again, they are above. Adrianisv ( talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
No one has mentioned anything of the Wallachian kingdom. The name "Empire of Vlachs and Bulgarians" is valid. Please, read the "Nomenclature" section. I don't see any reason for the discussion regarding the alternative name to continue. It is an alternative name used in international historiography. Adrianisv ( talk) 13:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources before pushing this fringe view here. Thanks. Jingiby ( talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It somehow struck me as an unusual representation to use a map of the empire in its most progressed territorial decline and invasion by the Osman forces in the introduction of the article. For example look at the article on the Roman Empire. The map in the introduction shows the empire in its greatest territorial extent, not in the years where it covered only 1/2 of the Italian peninsula. The same goes for the Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire or any of the empires in wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires) Should we consider consistency and get a more representative map showing the empire at its greatest territorial extent ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.135.71 ( talk) 03:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
According to this map, Constantinople is in the middle of the Howard Stern Sea and the Danube spills inland. Someone should clean it up. :-) bogdan 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
proposal: add more maps, maybe from Ivan Assen's era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.0.94 ( talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The modern Bulgarian state is 110,000 km squared, so how can this empire be 7 times as large? Any dumb nationalists want to defend this stupidity? Tourskin ( talk) 04:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we have a citation from a reliable source in English, please? It strikes me as dubious, which is why I added a {{ dubious}} tag. Thank you. El_C 07:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious that the 1st Bulgarian Empire was annexed at 1018, the second was estamblished 170 years later. So it is historically inaccurate to claim that the 2nd was the succesor of the first, or the first was the preceseccor of the 2nd. I hope this explanation is simple on the issue. Any contradicting arguments (like time travel potentiality in 11-12th century) will be interesting.
Same situtation happens with the link to History of Bulgaria (1878-1946). Why such time gaps? From 15th century to 1878?
To summarize the right sequence is:
1st Bulgarian Empire (680–1018)-Byzantine Empire (1018-1185)-2nd Bulgarian Empire (1185–1422)- Ottoman Bulgaria(1422-1878)-Modern Bulgaria (1878-today). Alexikoua ( talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added "citation needed" after this part. I'd rather see some evidence that the nobility was being KILLED, and not DEPORTED to somewhere, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaceInTheSand ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Gligan affirmed that "it is not synonymous with the term Second Bulgarian Empire, because it can only be used for the first years of the existence of a coutry which existed as a single state for over 200 years.". However we need a source for that, because in its absence, it represents only WP:OR. ( SamiraJ ( talk) 06:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC))
Any other than Romanian sources for Romanian Bulgarian Empire? Slovakian historians could consider the Roman Empire as Slovakian Roman Empire and will be this notable for the article Roman Empire(nothing against Slovak historians, just for example)? On the same way the opinion and the way the Romanian historians transform the state's name and call it is neither notable or reliable for the aricle Second Bulgarian Empire. An medieval manuscript or wether text from the period is needed to confirm that the term Romanian Bulgarian Empire term existed, otherwise it becomes only a new created POV and that the Romanian historography use the POV in present-day doesn't matter for the article. Dinner for three ( talk) 13:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, a personal opinion from me. It is not only up to Sources. Please mind the historical context. One should not look for national institutes in feudal times. Positively, there were local markets, ethnic cultures and endogamy in the medieval period, but no nationwide concepts of general education, social policies or representative sports teams as it is today. Therefore it was not Vlacho-Bulgaria, but the State of bulgars and vlachs, that was ruled over by a certain Dynasty. And as it was a monarchy, and the monarch was the earthly prince, his subordinates always tried to emulate (and eventually replace) him. This means that family and bloodline were more important than tongue and merit.
The Nomenclature paragraph in this article is just fine and sufficient in this version ID: 1030307560. Litev ( talk) 07:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm adding here the opinion of a Russian historian, A.A. Vasiliev in his book “History of the Byzantine Empire” that might help in this discussion:
I've just reverted a bunch of edits by User:Dinner for three:
— OwenBlacker ( Talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I apologize. I didn't knew for the script standarts, but the Principality of Bulgaria as successor should be back. That it was not immediate but logical successor is POV, it was called Bulgaria and used the same language as official. The fact that the two countries were Bulgaria is well-known among the sources and this should be back.
For Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars by Britannica, that was disclaimed in the talk by historical letters, texts, etc. It was only used during Kaloyan's reign altough even then in official letters the state was called Bulgaria or Bulgarian Empire, this name has no place in the intro beacause it was only in a period and not in the entire exsistence of the state. Dinner for three ( talk) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I just deleted the "Romanian-Bulgarian" empire since the word "romanian" comes centuries later and as well is not relevant how the modern Romanian historiography perceives the name of the country, but how is called from the historians and in other official documents in that age, not in the 21th century. 212.10.94.203 ( talk) 21:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was called only Bulgaria - "Second Bulgarian" is to separate it chronologically. Please, avoid dubious interpretations of history. The Romanian-Bulgarian proposal has only one source, which is from 2001. You have to find credible historical sources for your statement. 212.10.94.203 ( talk) 23:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
All of which are from Romanians and none one of them dates back to historical sources. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalism. 212.10.94.203 ( talk) 11:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all the source itself is not credible and has no historical evidence for the country being called "Romanian". There were no "Romanians" at that time. Secondly, the Romanian viewpoint, being understandably biased and nationalistic, should not be here because:
212.10.94.203 ( talk) 13:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is an argument, because the truth is only one, not two. Hence when 99% of the modern international historians as well 99% of the historical figures in the middle ages refer the country as Bulgarian, there is no point of putting focus on the 1% of biased Romanian interpretations. It does not matter how you call the country in Romania today. Point is how was called in the Middle-Ages. 130.226.139.247 ( talk) 13:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The denomination is also used by the European Centre of Historical Studies Venice 79.117.151.226 ( talk) 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the totally unsustainable paragraph concerning the survival of the Bulgarian nobility and population north of Danube after the end of the 14th century, it's complete fiction (of course, it had no quoted sources). By that time, Wallachia was well constituted as a state, and was under the rule of Mircea, covering the territory from the Iron Gates of Danube to the Danube Delta and later the Black Sea. The idea of a Bulgarian 'semi-state' within the Wallachian state is both unprecedented and a nonsense.
My edit was reverted, but I found further evidence of Bulgaria being a vassal of Serbia: The Cambridge Medieval History ("But for the ruler (Dushan) of so vast realm, the title of King seemed insignificant, specially as his vassal, the ruler of Bulgaria, bore the great name of Tsar."). FkpCascais ( talk) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Another source. It says: "...including (talking of Dushan Empire) Bosnia, the Herzegovina, Macedonia, and the vassal State of Bulgaria herself." FkpCascais ( talk) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I apologise Gligan for not answering earlier. Here are some sources claiming vassalship. I am posting here only English language sources from neutral authors and the search is difficult because of the number of results for Bulgaria and Serbia becoming vassals of the Ottomans.
It also may be possible that the participation of Bulgarian Patriarch Simeon at the coronation of Tsar Dushan was not in a sense "to help" like suggested in one article here, but as him recognizing Dushan souvereignity. FkpCascais ( talk) 03:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
During a requested GOCE copy-edit; I saw at first instances of American orthography, but as I worked down the article I started running into British spellings. Since the article's subject has strong links to neither country, I took the first variant, AmEng, as the dominant variant in use there. There's no note on the talk page and I'm not prepared to trawl the archive to discover the first historical variant. The requester Gligan ( talk · contribs) has told me his/her preference is BrEng, to which I'll change the article when I've finished my c/e in about two days from my timestamp. Is there any reason I shouldn't do this? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an anthropological distance between the ethnicities living in the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire, regardless of the preservation of "Bulgarian" ethnonym. This should be specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianisv ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I've added a citation request to the following claim: "A successor to the First Bulgarian Empire". However, if someone doesn't back this up soon, I will change it to "dubious" claim. Adrianisv ( talk) 04:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This page has been subjected to a number of minor changes throughout time by dubious users (Bulgarian nationalists), who removed the multiethnic emphasasis of the state, replacing all mentions of vlachs and cumans participating in battles - as described by Byzantine chronicles - with "Bulgarians". Adrianisv ( talk) 04:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Differentiate between Bulgarian ethnic identity and Bulgarian civic identity in the first paragraphs of the article. Mentioning of Vlachs and Cumans in battles; mentioning on the Vlach origin of Asen dynasty -- Steven Runciman. A History of the Crusades (page 13); George Finlay, A History of Greece, Cambridge University Press, 2014 Edition, p.231 Adrianisv ( talk) 05:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Source, please. I gave you sources citing Byzantine and Franks chroniclers on Vlach origin of Anastestilor Dynasty. Other sources, citing most recognized contemporary Byzantine source, Nicetas Choniates -- Dimitri Korobeinikov, A broken mirror: the Kipchak world in the thirteenth century. In the volume: The other Europe from the Middle Ages, Edited by Florin Curta, Brill 2008, p. 394; Dimitri Korobeinikov, A broken mirror: the Kipchak world in the thirteenth century; Victor Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic nomads north of the Danube Delta from the tenth to the mid-thirteenth century, 2009, ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5, 9004175369 Adrianisv ( talk) 07:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
If you don't back up your claims, I will go further with my edits. Adrianisv ( talk) 06:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
As for you trying to force a succession between First and Second Bulgarian Empire, refer to the issue opened above, "Removing the information regarding Second Bulgarian Empire as the sucessor of the First Bulgarian Empire". I hope you understand no one will let this exaggerated statement pass. There is no connection between Turkic Bulgars and Slavic Bulgarians, other than the ethnonym. Adrianisv ( talk) 07:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I see you are bothered by the changes I've made. If you'd like to edit something out, go ahead and refer to my changes one by one. The changes I've made consists of cited, verified information presented in the following sections of the Wikipedia page. The alternative name "Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars" and the multiethnic character of the state are documented in the Wikipedia page. Adrianisv ( talk) 07:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
That proves nothing, except another possibility of him being a Vlach ruler (Romanslayer) that ruled over the Bulgarians. In any case, I don't see his ethnicity disputed, but the subject is avoided altogether. "Romanslayer" and "Bulgarslayer" are definetly not a valid link between First and Second Bulgarian Empire, no matter how much you force it. And I did read the article. Thanks. Vlach-Bulgarian Empire is an alternative name used in international historiography. Adrianisv ( talk) 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
First of all, the source is in Bulgarian, the punctuation is definetly not okay and the text has many, unnecessary explanations in the paranthesis which alter the content of the letter and add to the Bulgarian nationalistic bias. If the letter is real and correctly translated, it doesn't change the fact Bulgarian was used as a civic identity. Again, the Anes dynasty is of Vlach origin, according to two Byzantine chronicles (one being Nicetas Choniates, the most recognized contemporary medieval source) and one Franks chronicle. I won't post the sources again, they are above. Adrianisv ( talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
No one has mentioned anything of the Wallachian kingdom. The name "Empire of Vlachs and Bulgarians" is valid. Please, read the "Nomenclature" section. I don't see any reason for the discussion regarding the alternative name to continue. It is an alternative name used in international historiography. Adrianisv ( talk) 13:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources before pushing this fringe view here. Thanks. Jingiby ( talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)