Talk:Kaloyan of Bulgaria

Source dispute

It's an incredible argument isn't it? Well, I guess the only question left for the Rumanian nationalists is how come Ioan Asen II (son of Asen I and nephew of Kaloyan) explicitly labels himself "czar and autocrat of Bulgarians and Greeks"? So what happened - the Asen dynasty changed their nationality all of a sudden?

Why only "of Bulgaria" ?

• Bulgaria was only half of his state, which included Wallachia and other regions inhabited then by Vlachs (Western Bulgaria and Macedonia).

POV by Bogdan - they were populated by Bulgarians for the most part, when, f.ex., Stefan Dushan conquered Macedonia and crowned himself tsar in 1346, he proclaimed himself emperor of Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians. Where are your Vlachs, Bogdan?:-))

• some medieval sources (the cruciats) claimed that the Vlachian element was predominant in this kingdom.

This is crap

• the ruling Asen dinasty was Vlach (even Kaloyan's name "Ioannitsa" is 100% Romanian).

Only partially supported by some medieval documents, as for the name Ioannitsa, it is 100% Romanian as defined only by you. Their names are clearly Cuman.

• he even named himself "the king of Bulgaria and Wallachia" - 'Rex totius Bulgarie et Vlachie'.

He did rule over Wallachia:-)). From his correspondence with Pope Innocentius, it becomes clear that he wanted to restore the Bulgarian Empire - he quoted Bulgarian tsars Peter, Simeon and Samuil numerous times and declared he is their descendant. VMORO 15:32, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)~

Bogdan | Talk 14:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because the sources are on the whole so scanty, and because they sometimes lend themselves to conflicting interpretation, this period (1018-1185) and the one which follows (1185-1204), with which we are most concerned, have become the subject of much controversy between chauvinist Bulgarian and Rumanian scholars. In general, it is the Bulgarians' purpose to proclaim, so far as they can make the testimony of the sources conform to their preconceptions, that Bulgaria remained a single administrative unit until late in the period; that the Bulgarians were always restive under and rebellious against Byzantine rule; and, above all, that the Vlachs played no part in the developments at the end of the period of Byzantine occupation which led to the formation of the second 'Bulgarian' Empire. Of this school the most famous representative is Vasil Zlatarski, although Peter Mutafciev, Peter Nikov, and Ivan Duicev have not been far behind. The Rumanians, for their part, are eager to show that the Byzantine government divided Bulgaria into at least two military 'Duchies'; that the Bulgarians of this period were a primitive people with no culture of their own, willing to submit to Byzantium; and, above all, that it was the Vlach portion of the population who led the revolt of 1186 and brought new glory and independence under a Vlach dynasty to the submerged and apathetic Bulgarians. Of this school the most famous representative is, of course, the incredibly prolific Nicolae Iorga; but the most effective scholarly research has been performed and the most notable contributions to knowledge made by Nicolae Banescu. Iorga and Banescu have sometimes been challenged by Constantin Giurescu. (Wolf, 1949)

Since nothing on this controversy is mentioned, it's POV. Bogdan | Talk 10:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we have discussed this at length, haven't we? What you quote is the description of what the Romanian nationalist historians think, not the author's attitude. "Macedonia and Western Bulgaria had predominantly Vlach population..." Yeah, and Mars and Venus had, as well. VMORO

Why did you revert that ? Are you disputing the fact that I dispute the neutrality ? Bogdan | Talk 15:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and I have enumerated my reasons.

This Nicolae Iorga fellow has some of the most ludicrous writings I've ever encountered. But since we're on the subject, let me present the most distinguished Romanian historian today: Lucian Boia. I recomend his book "History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness" to everyone interested in Romanian and Balkan history. http://www1.minn.net/~graczar/FTR-208/boia.htm (Kaloyan)

Sources

I made a list of primary sources which claim that Kaloyan was Vlach/Romanian and another list of primary sources which claim that Kaloyan was of Bulgarian ethnicity. Note that our friend, VMORO, believes that Wikipedia should say that he was definitively Bulgarian and not mention a word about a possible Romanian ethnicity. Also, please note that ethnicity is a different thing from ancestry. I may have some Bulgarian ancestry from Dobrogea, but I am a Romanian ethnic.

-Romanian ethnicity did not exist at that time. You can get away with claiming Kaloyan was of Wallachian origin. Btw, do I need to register in order to start participating in this discussion?

"Wallachian" is what the Slavs and Greeks called the "Romanians". bogdan | ^Talk 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What Romanians, Bogdan? Did you mean the Bessarabians, Transylvanians or Wallachians? You seem to constantly confuse the Modern idea of Romania with medieval history.

Romanian ethnicity

• Nicetas Choniates
• the testimony of Ansbert and of the other western sources for the Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa
• the papal correspondence with Ioannitsa
• Villehardouin
• Robert of Clari
• Benjamin of Tudela

N.B. Romanian ethnicity did not exist until the 19th century. Get serious or go back to high school!

"Romanian ethnicity did not exist until the 19th century." are you high? N.B.Romanian ethnicity appeared with the Eastern Roman empire established by Constantine the Great a thracian not a latin or a greek or a bulgarian. Wallachian is a slavic exonim . None of the tsars from the Asan dinasty have bulgarian or slavic names they have romanian names and their ethnicity is Romanian. do you want bulgar names? look at Kyrgyz,Khazar and Hunic names do you want slavic names? look at Georgian or Serbian names.

I recommend that YOU should learn HISTORY not BS.Bye!

Bulgarian ethnicity

(no source of the Middle Ages ever claimed that was Kaloyan was Bulgarian)

Bogdan:

Nicetas Choniates, 482, 3, says that the barbarians of the Haemus region who used to be called Moesians, were now called Wallachians.

(Moesians was the name usually given by Byzantine historians to the Bulgarians - becaused they lived in the Balkan region they called himself Moesia.)

Тheodore Scutariot explicitly states that the Wallachians are Bulgarians.

So, what is this? A direct confirmation of the theory of Zlatarsky that the term Vlachs was used to denote the Bulgarians from Paristrion.

Anyway, I think this discussion has been closed for a long time. What don't you like about the present formulation and which statement do u disagree with: that the medieval sources called the first three rulers Vlachs, that their names are most likely Cuman or that they viewed themselves as descendents of Simeon, Petar and Samuil and their state as a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire? I think we have agreed on all three statements - and that they, as at the moment, are irrefutable. So what's your problem? VMORO 19:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of early Romanian noble families and rulers of Wallachia had Cuman names, such as Basarab and Thocomer. bogdan | ^Talk 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

- That is because there were large Cuman settlements in what is modern Romania.

Bogdan, ALL Bulgarian dynasties ruling during the the time of the Second Bulgarian Empire had Cuman names - Asen, Shishman and Terter. Plus, Bogdan, some of the early rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia clearly had Bulgarian names - such as Tihomir, for example. VMORO 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

-What about Mircha, Bogdan I, Vladislav I and Vlad Tepes (obviously short for Vladislav or Vladimir)?

Balkan Bulgarian aristocrasy was from cumans not slavs as mentioned in the text no matter what their names are they were cumans slowly digested among slavic subjects of theirs.No orthodox slav would turn against a Christian Emperor but this "Turkic Barbarians" (Bulgars) slaughtered peaceful crusader Commanders and Emperors just for joy. As in the East a pagan Turkic faction was ruling homeland of belivers.

You have obviously no idea of what you're talking about. Bulgarian aristrocracy during the Second Bulgarian Empire included Cuman nobles, in order to secure Cuman friendship and military support. Bulgars never slaughtered any crusaders as the crusaders emerged centuries after the Bulgars had disappeared as a notion. If you're referring to Krum slaying Nichephorus, that was after the latter had burned and pillaged Pliska. In other words, he was anything but peaceful and

civilised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.208.218 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Kaloyan - Klokotnitsa?

Kaloyan has nothing to do with the Battle at Klokotnitsa which was fought more than two decades after his death. The "rex" of Wallachia and Bulgaria as he is mentioned in his correspondence with Pope Innocent III crushed the crusaders near Adrianople on April 14, 1205.

Many Western and Russian sources claim that Asen is the same as Ashina, the famous Turkic Khan dynasty. --217.9.225.146 15:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kaloyan and Wallachians

I was at first reticent to expand the article on Kaloyan precisely because it seems to have attracted a lot of nationalist controversy. Then, since I had expanded the articles (or rather stubs) on all the other rulers of the Second Bulgarian Empire, I decided to do so to achieve greater overall consistency. I think I have kept the content neutral, but additional edits reflecting a rather pro-Romanian bias quickly appeared, namely that (1) Kaloyan's other nickname (Ivanica/Ioanica) is derived from Romanian Ioan and (2) that his army was reinforced with "north-danubian Wallachians" in 1205. The first of these statements is not accurate for two reasons: while Ioan (and also Ion) is the Romanian for "John", the medieval Bulgarian scribes also used the form Ioan (which in fact survives in the names of modern Bulgarian Orthodox clergy). So Ioan is both Bulgarian and Romanian and cannot be claimed as exclusive to either language. The second statement is not sustainable, because according to Romanian traditions, the Vlachs/Wallachians settled in what became Wallachia later in the 13th century. If Kaloyan's army contained Wallachians proper (as opposed to any persons from the territory then labeled Wallachia=Moesia, for which please see below), which it probably did, they would have most likely come from south of the Danube at that point in history.

The fiercely contested issue of whether Kaloyan and his brothers were Bulgarian or Wallachian is neither solvable nor productive. Firstly we are dealing with a largely pre-national era, and one in which nomenclature was used rather liberally. I have inserted a balanced summary of the issue in the final paragraphs of the article on Peter IV of Bulgaria, which I insert below:

While the person of Peter IV remains little known and enygmatic, the ethnic nature of the rebellion which he headed together with his brothers has been hotly disputed in the age of nationalism. Bulgarian historians insist on the Bulgarian origin of the rebellion and its leaders, while Romanian historians want to see them as proto-Romanian Vlachs (Wallachians).

The main source on the restoration of the Second Bulgarian Empire is the Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates. Choniates refers to the people of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I as "the barbarians round the mountain Haimos, earlier called Mysians, and are now called Vlachs" (Choniates, 482). The designation Mysians is derived from the Roman province of Moesia, corresponding to the territory between the Balkan (Haimos/Haemus) mountains and the Lower Danube.

The term Mysians had been used to designate the Bulgarians by classicizing Byzantine historians since at least Leo the Deacon in the second half of the 10th century. (In the same classicizing vein, Byzantine authors were want to call the Russians "Scythians" and the Serbs "Triballoi".) To add to the confusion, elsewhere in Choniates' history, the subjects of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I are on occassion called "Mysians", "Vlachs" or two different but conjoined peoples, "Bulgarians and Vlachs" (Choniates, 485). The contemporary German (Austrian) chronicler Ansbert mentions "the Vlach Kalopetrus and his brother Assanius" (33), and calls Peter IV "ruler of the Vlachs and the greater part of the Bulgarians" (58).

The eminent Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarski has drawn attention to the fact that under Byzantine rule Bulgaria proper was divided between a theme of Bulgaria (in the west) and a theme called Paradounabion/Paristrion and later Moesia (in the east). Since Niketas Choniates explicitly states that "the Mysians ... are now called Vlachs", Zlatarski concludes that the conjoint terms Bulgarians and Vlachs found in the sources indicate the extension of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I's control over the population of both themes, Bulgaria and Moesia. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Ansbert, who would be correct to identify Peter IV as master of (all) Moesia (as ruler of the Vlachs) and of (a part) of Bulgaria (as ruler of the greater part--superlative!--of the Bulgarians). However, Zlatarski's analysis glosses over the important implication that in order for the Mysians to be called Vlachs in Choniates' time, there must have been very significant Vlach (Wallachian) population on the territory of Moesia itself. This means that even if the medieval description of the population is based primarily on the administrative division of the themes, the popular support for the rebellion of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I consisted of both Bulgarians and Vlachs, rather than exclusively one group or the other.

It should be noted that while the primarily Cuman-populated area between the Danube and the Carpathians fell under Bulgarian suzerainty after the restoration of the Second Bulgarian Empire, Wallachia proper was not yet in existence, and according to Romanian tradition, the Vlachs settled in that area in the second half of the 13th century, in the wake of the Mongol invasion and the displacement of the Cumans. This means that the "Vlachia" in the titles of "king/emperor of Bulgarians and Vlachs" or "king/emperor of Bulgaria and Vlachia" found in the correspondence between Peter IV's successor Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III is probably still the Byzantine theme of Moesia. It should also be noted that these titles never occur in Bulgarian sources, and are found exclusively in the foreign, Latin-language diplomatic correspondence of Kaloyan's reign. The Bulgarian title reads "emperor and autocrat of the Bulgarians", later expanded to include "all Bulgarians and Greeks". Nevertheless the characterization of the state in the imperial title need not correspond completely to its ethnic composition, as it hearkened back to First Bulgarian Empire, which had been conquered by the Byzantines in 1018.

The ethnic origin of Peter IV, Ivan Asen I, and Kaloyan has been subjected to the same nationalist controversy. In his correspondence with Pope Innocent III, Kaloyan followed up the pope's flattering suggestion and called the earlier Bulgarian emperors Simeon I, Peter I, and Samuel his "ancestors". This descent is most likely nothing more than a legitimizing fiction. The "Vlachian" origin of the brothers attested in the sources may simply confirm what is already known, that they lived in Moesia. Nothing in the historical evidence allows us to identify them as either specifically Vlachs or Bulgarians. However, the non-Christian name of Ivan Asen I and his sobriquet Belgun seem to indicate Turkic, perhaps Cuman origin. This is a likely option, as large numbers of Cumans had settled in Moesia in the 12th century, and continued to do so in the 13th. If that is correct, then the nationalist controversy becomes obsolete, as the Cumans are an extinct people, which is neither Bulgarian nor Romanian, and has intermixed with both.

In other words, the founders of the Second Bulgarian Empire were neither entirely (or exclusively) Bulgrian or Romanian, but most probably Cuman. Their subjects were called Bulgarians and Wallachians because of the administrative division of the liberated territory between the Byzantine themes or duchies of Bulgaria (west) and Wallachia (earlier Moesia, earlier yet Paradounabion/Paristrion, east). At the same time, in order for Moesia to be called Wallachia in the first place, it must have contained a sizeable population of Vlachs/Wallachians, who would have surely been involved in the revolt against Byzantine rule alongside with their Bulgarian neighbors. If this 800-year old event should be an issue of modern national pride, then perhaps the ancient cooperation of the two ethnie ought to be the taken as model, rather than their modern opposition. Consider the futility of the French and the Germans arguing over who has a better right to Charlemagne. At any rate, I ask that future editors to this article keep a neutral persepective and not interpolate any evidence without fully considering its implications in this complex set of circumstances.

Imladjov 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Please spare me... You haven`t really sayd anything. Just speculations, interpretations, smoke in the face, etc...

Sources for my adds:

• Now Johannizza, the King of Wallachia and Bulgaria, though rich and of great possessions, never forgat his own interests, but raised a great force of Comans and Wallachians. ([1]).

• Please spare me of that BS, that by "vlachs", they actually meant bulgarians from Moesia, or that "King of Vlachs and of Bulgarians" meant "King of Bulgarians and Bulgarians" hahah hahhaha... SPARE ME!!!!!

"Pliris is a river with a wide valley spreading on both sides of its banks. It flows across the land of the Wallachians, dividing it into two. Nikolitsa set up his camp there, gathered the Wallachians and the Bulgarians, living nearby, and so he collected numerous troops." - Kekaumenos, Strategicon et Incerti scriptoris de officiis reglis. (here by "vlach" he is meaning aromanians, and by "bulgarians" he means macedonians)

" We decree that the holiest Archbishop of Bulgaria shall possess not only the bishoprics mentioned by names but if there are some others situated in Bulgarian lands and forgotten to be mentioned, we decree that he shall possess and govern them as well. Whatever other towns missed to be mentioned in the charters of our Majesty, shall be possessed by the same holiest Archbishop and he shall collect canonicon from them all as well as from the Wallachians throughout Bulgaria and from the Turks around the Vardar in so far as they are within the Bulgarian boundaries." - Charter of Basil II to Samuil of Bulgaria.

and the sources keep on...

If it was ever such a misintpretation, is the other way arround: "bulgarian" was used to name the vlachs of the First Bulgarian Empire.

• now that we are clear in what was wallachian and what was bulgarian we have: Nicetas Choniates, the testimony of the Crusaders of Frederick Barbarossa, the Pope, Villehardouin, Robert of Clari, Benjamin of Tudela, etc... wich say the asens were vlachs.

No sources say they were bulgarians. No sources say they were cumans.

• Asen Dynasty: Ioan (or Ioaniţa, cleary a Romanian diminutive, despite what you say. e.g.: Costi Ioniţă, Niculiţă, etc), Tudor, Căliman, Petru, Borilă, Miţu = Clearly they are Romanian names, not Cuman!!! The nickame of ONE of the brothers is Cuman, as it WAS USED BY THE CUMANS IN HIS ARMY!!!!

Todor, Kaliman, Petar, Boril and Mitu are clearly Bulgraian names. Nothing remotely Latin/Romanian on them. -- Kaloyan* 12:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Imladjov, you are really not impressing me with that tone of calm tone and those "arguments". You shoyld be thankfull I even replied to your BS. Greier 11:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaloyan and Wallachians

Greier,

Wikipedia is committed to neutrality, and your edits clearly fall rather short of that ideal. While I recognize that the issue is both unsettled and perhaprs impossible to settle because of extranious reasons, I wish to keep the actual article free from reflections of either extreme. But since you insist on claiming that your position is unequivocally supported by the sources, kindly make sure you reflect them correctly and unselectively, without glossing over explicit statements such as Choniates' equasion of Mysians and Wallachians and so forth. And also note that I agree that there must have been plenty of Wallachians in Moesia in order for the land to become known as Wallachia in the later 12th century in the first place.

Now as to the ordering of elements in Kaloyan's title, please consider the following references from the actual correspondence between Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III (I have attempted to collect every single reference to the monarch's title or the description of the state or church). Unless otherwise specified, the letters are between Innocent III and either Kaloyan or his Archbishop of Tărnovo Vasilij.

Letter [l.V] 115, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXIV: Littere Caloiohannis domini Bulgarorum et Blachorum, misse domino Innocentio pape III, translate de bulgarico in grecum et de greco in latinum.... Ego Caloiohannes imperator Bulgarorum et Blachorum...

Letter 116, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXIV: Nobili viro Caloiohanni domino Bulgarorum et Blachorum... Michaelis regis bulgariric... universa Bulgarorum et Blachorum ecclesia...

Letter 119, Mighe, Patrologia Latina CCXIV: ad dilecti filii nobilis viris Caloiohannis domini Bulgarorum et Blachorum

Letter 142, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXIV: Caloiohannes, imperator Bulgarorum, sanctissimo domino, fidei Christianorum ab Oriente usque ad Occidentem patriarchae, papae Romano.

Letter 143, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXIV: Receptis litteris, quas sub nomine nobilis viri Caloiohannis domini Bulgarorum per dilectum filium Conctantinum presbyterum et Sergium comestabulum... Illo quoque cum litteris eiusdem domini Bulgarorum, tuis etiam et Bellote principis...

Letter [l.VII] 1, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: Caloiohanni illustri Bulgarorum et Blachorum regi... eiusque metropolitani tam in Bulgarie quam Blachie provinciis constituti subiaceant...

Letter 2, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: ... archiepiscopo Trinovitano Bulgarorum et Blachorum primati... Karissimum in Christo filium nostrum Kaloiohannem, hactenus ipsorum dominum, regem statuimus super eos per dilectum filium... Te quoque in regno Bulgarorum et Blachorum primatem statuimus... benedicenti et coronandi regi Bulgarorum et Blachorum... quam in qualibet cathedrali ecclesia Bulgarie et Blachie ... ante te per totam Bulgariam et Blachiam deferendi fraternitati tue licentiam impertimur.

Letter 3, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: Archiepiscopo Trniovitano Bulgarorum et Blachorum primati...

Letter 4, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: Cum placuit Domino nostro Iesu Christo me dominum et imperatorem totius Bulgarie et Vlachie facere... beate memorie imperatorum nostrorum predecessorum leges, unde ipsi sumpserunt regnum Bulgarorum et firmamentum imperiale... beate memorie illi imperatores Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Symeon, Petrus et Samuel et nostri predecessores... beate memorie imperatores totius Bulgarie et Vlachie...

Letter 5, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: ...[ego] archiepiscupus Basilius de minoribus et humillimis totius Bulgarie et Blachie...

Letter 6, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: imperator omnium Bulgarorum et Blachorum cum omnibus princibus imperiii mei multum bene sum per Deum et sanctam orationem tuam... misit imperium meum archiepiscopum meum et totius bulgarice regionis et universalem sancte et magne ecclesie Trinove, et magnum hominem imperii mei, nunc nominatum primatem et archipiscopum totius Bulgarie et Blachie, nomine Basilium... predecessorum meorum imperatorum Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Symeonis, Petri et Samuelis progenitorum meorum et ceterorum ominum imperatorum Bulgarorum... primatem et archiepiscopum totius Bulgarie et Blachie... Et de confinio Hungarie, Bulgarie et Blachie relinquo iudicio sanctitatis tue et ita habeat imperium meum iusticias Bulgarie et Blachie... episcopatus Bulgarie pertinent ad imperium meum... Imperator Bulgarie Caloiohannes.

Letter 7, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: karissimus in Christo filius noster Caloiohannes rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum

Letter 8, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: ...illustri Regi Bulgarorum et Blachorum... Bulgarorum et Blachorum populis... in Bulgariam et Blachiam a nostro latere destinamus... totius Bulgarie ac Blachie primatem...

Letter 9, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: ... Archiepiscopo Trinovitano totius Bulgarie et Blachie primati et aliis archiepiscopis, episcopis, clero et populo in Bulgaria et Blachia costitutis.

Letter 11, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: Ego archiepiscopus Trinovitanus, primas totius Bulgarie et Blachie... Ceterum cum aliquem coronavero in regem Bulgarorum et Blachorum iuxta indulgentiam michi et successoribus meis ab apostolica sede concessam...

Letter 12, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: Caloiohanni regi Bulgarorum et Blachorum illustri.

Letter 12, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to Hungary): Bulgarorum et Blachorum ecclesiam... Bulgarorum et Blachorum populus

Letter 126, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to the king of Hungary): quod in finibus Ungariae iniuriose impedisset legato cardinali Leoni transitum in Bulgariam... regressus in Bulgariam et Blachiam... in Bulgariam et Blachiam per regnum tuum... quos in Bulgariam duxerat transmittendos... ut eum transferrent in Bulgariam cum honore... ubi solo Danubio mediante regnum Ungarie a Bulgarorum provincia separatur... episcopo Bulgaro transitum fecerunt omnino precludi... domino Bulgarorum per nuntios demandaret...

Letter 127, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (to the same): nuntiis nostris in terram Ioannitii dominum Bulgarorum et ipsius nonutiis ad ecclesiam Romanam... Nam antiquitus in Bulgaria multi reges successive fuerunt auctoritate apostolica coronati, sicut Petrus et Samuel et alii nonnulli post illos... Nam et ad predicationem sancte memorie Nicolai pape predecessoris nostri rex Bulgarorum... sed tandem prevalentibus Grecis, Bulgari prediderunt regiam dignitatem, quin immo compulsi sunt gravi sub iugo constantinopolitano servire, donec novissime duo fratres, Petrus videlicet ei Ioannitius, de priorum regum prosapia descentes, terram patrum suorum non tam occupare, quam recuperare ceperunt... ut iam non superesset nisi Danubii transitus de Ungarie in Bulgariam, quia tamen iuxta verbum poeticum turpius eiicitur...

Letter 137, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (to the same): procederet ad coronandum Ioannitium dominum Bulgarorum, donec controversiam...

Letter 203, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (to the [Latin] church of Constantinople): sive in Bulgaria et Blachia...

Letter 230, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: Caloiohannes rex totius Bulgarie et Vlachie... Et universa Bulgaria atque Blachie et omnis imperii mei...

Letter 231, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: ... a me Basilio, humili Bulgarorum et Blachorum primate... benedixit imperatori Caloiohanni domino omnium Bulgarorum atque Blachorum...

Letter [l.VIII] 125, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to a French bishop?): Rex quoque Blachorum et Bulgarorum cum Cumanis, Turcis et Grecis adversus Latinos pugnantes...

Letter 129, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: Caloiohanni regi Bulgarirum et Blachorum illustri... Trinovitano archiepiscopo Bulgarorum et Blachorum primati...

Letter 131, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Henry of Constantinople to Innocent III): Adrianopolim videlicet, que civitas est Grecie munitissima et montibus tantum interpositis, Blachorum affinis pupulis... Porro audito a Iohannitio Blachorum domino... irruit subito Blachus ille Iohannitius in nostros... cum multitudine barbarorum innumera, Blachis videlicet, Commannis et aliis... per litteras ipsius Blachi confederationem ipsius cum Turcis et ceteris crucis Christi inimicis continentes edocti firmus...

Letter 132, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to Henry of Constantinople): cum karissimo in Christo filio nostro Kaloiohanne rege Bulgarorum et Blachorum illustri, ut inter Bulgaros et Latinos fidelis et stabilis amicitia de cetero perseveret...

Letter [l.IX] 199, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to western crusaders): et tam contra ... Blachum, quam contra alios hostes imperii postmodum sepius triumphavit...

Letter [l.X] 65, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: Carissimo in Christo filio nostro Kaloiohanni regi Bulgarorum illustri.

As can be plainly seen by these numerous examples of diplomatic correspondence (the most primary type of source), the title is ruler of "Bulgarians and Vlachs" or of "Bulgaria and Wallachia", or simply of "Bulgarians" or "Bulgaria". Note that in Letter 131 [the future Emperor] Henry of Constantinople identifies the region across the mountains from Adrianople as the region of the Vlachs, i.e., that Moesia is indeed the Wallachia in question. The same letter represents the only exception to the general pattern, as it refers to Kaloyan's subjects exclusively as "Vlachs". This means that the term "Vlach" cannot possibly refer exclusively to Vlachs proper in these texts, but rather to population coming from a land identified as "Wallachia". Of course this means that much of that population must have been "Vlach", abut much is not all or even most. Moreover, the Wallachia in question cannot be that in or near Thessaly, or the historical Wallachia between the Danube and the Carpathians (both because of where the sources situate it, and because Wallachia proper north of the Danube did not come into being until later in the 13th century, with or without Radu Negru).

On names, you are clearly overreaching. There is nothing particularly Romanian about Ioan and Ioanica. Ioan is the natural Slavic simplification of the Greek Iōannēs with the fallout of the Greek nominative suffix. The form Ioanica is the normal medieval Slavic dominitive, seen in other names like Nikolica, Nestorica, Dušica, Sigrica and countless others. By contrast, the forms Ivan and Ivanica are a result of modern standardization, although they were already developed in the Middle Ages (compare another diminutive Ivanko). The fact that forms like Ioan and Ioaniţa occur in Romanian does not change the matter, it simply testifies to the cultural interchange between Bulgarians and proto-Romanians in the Middle Ages. Tudor for Todor (itself a Slavic derivative of Greek Theodōros) is found in Bulgarian Cyrillic sources as early as the 10th century. Would you also derive Welsh Tudor (from earlier Tewdwr, Theodore) from Romanian? How you can base any specific claim on Petru, I fail to see. Căliman cannot be claimed as a source of Romanian influence, as the name Kaliman was derived from Hungarian Kálman, itself a rendering of Latin Columbanus. I know of only two medieval examples of the name Boril (Greek Borilas), both connected with Bulgaria, and at least the earlier one (a courtier of the Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates) with apparently Cuman origin. You underestimate the Cuman connection. Of the three brothers, only Ivan Asen I bears names that are not purely Christian in origin. These names are Asen, a proper personal name, and Belgun, a sobriquet. Both of them are of Turkic, i.e. most likely Cuman orgin.

You should be careful in inferring origin from such folk etymology of names. If anything, the Bulgarian Slavic language was put into writing earlier, and was exported through church literature throughout the area. If Romanian and Bulgarian names must be derived from one or the other, the derivation of Romanian from Bulgarian (and/or other Slavic languages) would actually make more historical and linguistic sense. It would also help explain the appearance of clearly Slavic names like Radu (Radul), Bogdan, Mircea (Mirčo, a diminutive of names like Ljubomir), Vladislav (and its derivative Vlad) and others.

Lastly, I do not know you and do not seek or care to impress you. I am just concerned with factual accuracy and a reasonable degree of historical objectivity and neutrality. If being "calm" and scholarly is a bad thing in your book, so be it.

Best, 68.40.196.70 17:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I was talking about the calm attitude and self-assurance, wich at many people sprungs either from arrogance or, as I suspected here, from subjectivness.

There is nothing particularly Romanian about Ioan and Ioanica. Ioan is the natural Slavic simplification of the Greek Iōannēs with the fallout of the Greek nominative suffix. The form Ioanica is the normal medieval Slavic dominitive, seen in other names like Nikolica, Nestorica, Dušica, Sigrica and countless others. First, it is not Ivanica, it Ioanitsa. Secondly, you are confusing the typical slavic feminin "-itsa" (also written "-ica"), e.g. Rasputitsa, vjeverica, with "-iţă", wich is a masculine termination, possibly of latin or thracian origin. And what about Triaditsa? And even if it is bulgarian, the sources say he was a vlach. Correct?

Tudor for Todor (itself a Slavic derivative of Greek Theodōros) And how did you come to that conclusion? When I see that someone is called Tudor, and that someone is repeatedly called a Vlach not a slav, then I tend to think it`s a Romanian derivative of Greek Theodoros, rather than a slavic one. Isn`t that logical? And even if it is bulgarian, the sources say he was a vlach. Correct?

Căliman cannot be claimed as a source of Romanian influence, as the name Kaliman was derived from Hungarian Kálman I really don`t see how some sheperds (that`s what sources say they were) from the Hameus, would name theyr child after a hungarian king, wich in his turn was baptised with a latin name... And it also doesn`t explain how come there`s a moutain called Căliman in Romania. And even if it is bulgarian, the sources say he was a vlach. Correct?

I know of only two medieval examples of the name Boril (Greek Borilas), both connected with Bulgaria, and at least the earlier one (a courtier of the Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates) with apparently Cuman origin. I don`t think I have to tell you that not everything in the First Bulgarian Empire was bulgarian... I assumed Borila is Romanian, because I don`t think it has slavonic origin, and also the termination sounds really close to the Romanian "-ilă" : Samuilă, Gerilă, Nilă, etc. And even if it is bulgarian, the sources say he was a vlach. Correct?

You underestimate the Cuman connection. Of the three brothers, only Ivan Asen I bears names that are not purely Christian in origin. These names are Asen, a proper personal name, and Belgun, a sobriquet. Both of them are of Turkic, i.e. most likely Cuman orgin. Leave the cumans alone for the moment. They could be the purest cumans, as long as I keep seeing "King of Wallachia" and "armies of Wallachians and Cumans", this doesn`t matter. And even if they were cumans, the sources say they were vlahs. Correct?

It would also help explain the appearance of clearly Slavic names like Radu (Radul), Bogdan, Mircea (Mirčo, a diminutive of names like Ljubomir), Vladislav (and its derivative Vlad) and others. This is another story, about the influence of the Slavonic (as in church language) on the Romanian language and names, etc... Also, this could come prove my point more than yours: names, may them be Romanian, Bulgarian or Cuman, don`t really matter.

Now as to the ordering of elements in Kaloyan's title, please consider the following references from the actual correspondence between Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III (I have attempted to collect every single reference to the monarch's title or the description of the state or church). Unless otherwise specified, the letters are between Innocent III and either Kaloyan or his Archbishop of Tărnovo Vasilij.

In Geoffrey de Villehardouins chronicles, Ioanitsa is names simply as Ioanitsa, 26 times, as "Johannizza Çrois de Blaquie" 17 times, as "Johannizza Çrois de Blaquie et de Bougrie" 17 times (and always with Wallachia in front of Bulgaria). As "Johannizza Çrois de Bougrie", 0 times. As a state, Wallachia is mentioned 8 times, and Bulgaria, never!!! As peoples, Wallachians and Cumans are mentioned 4 times, Wallachians, Greeks and Cumans 2 times, Wallachians, Cumans and Bulgarians 1 time, Wallachians and Bulgarians 1 time. How come this inadequacy? How come the one who leads armies of Wallachians and Cumans would take the title of "King of Bulgaria and Wallachia"? The reason for the inadequacy with the Papal Letters (note that the Pappal Letters cleary mention "Wallachia" too. More than that, they account the latin origin of the Asens) is simple. The politics of the Middle Ages, of the divine right to rule, no mather of your race of language. Read again Geoffreys chronicle. Those 17 times when Ioanitsa (IOANITSA, NOT THE STATE) is called "King of Wallachia and Bulgaria", refer to moments when he described his dimplomatic deeds.

The way for Ioanitsa to prove the right to rule (actually, only to be recognised by the Pope), it to connect himself to the former csars Samuil, wich onced ruled a state called "Bulgaria".

Another prove of this: Robert de Claris account of the war, where he calls Ioanitsa ONLY as "King of Wallachia". For Robert, being less studied, and less learned about the political life of the time (he was just a chevalier, as opposed to Villehardouin who was the leader of the crusade, historian and knight), it doens`t matter so much as what Ioanitsas title was. All he knows it about Jean le Valaque, the ruler of Wallachia "Seigneur de sa terre de Valachie", about the country called Wallachia "terre qu'on appelle Valachie", and it`s Wallachian armies "hommes de Valachie", and rarely about the Wallachian and Cuman armies "les Valaques et les Comans". But that doesn`t mean that he was unaware of the ethnic composition of the state: he mentions the bulgarians too, but just rarely. Greier 19:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaloyan and Wallachians (3)

Greier,

I happen to study Byzantium and the medieval Balkans as my area of expertise, and I am sorry if my knowledge of the field is seen as a matter of arrogance by you.

Your analysis of the Slavic diminutive is based primarily on modern developments which do not always apply to medieval forms. What is now almost exclusively a feminine form need not have been applicable only to feminine nouns in the medieval period. Ioanica is the medieval form, Ivanica is the form produced by modern standardization (corresponding to archaic and now ecclesiastical Ioan, now replaced by secular Ivan), which is why I cite both. Since Kaloyan's actual signet ring reads "Kalojan", neither of the other forms need be used. Note also that "Kalojan" is the usual form used by him in his letters to the pope.

Which Tudor did you see being called a Wallachian in the sources? I do not a single occasion in which any one of the persons we are discussing was called both Tudor and a Wallachian? I am sure there were many Wallachians named Tudor, but I am not aware of one here (yes, Peter IV is called a Wallachian, but he is referred to as Kalopetrus, not Tudor). And certainly there is no requirement that every Bulgarian Theodore, has to be really a Wallachian. The Tudor I was referring to was a first cousin in the male line of the 10th century emperor Simeon I. And Simeon of all people did not need to make up a myth about being Bulgarian if he and his predecessors were really Wallachians.

It really does not matter whether you or I see how Wallachian shepherds (if that is what they were) named their child after a Hungarian king. But you simply have to consider the historical background. Ivan Asen II married the daughter of the Hungarian King Andrew II (András II), and named one of his sons by her Kaliman Asen. The child bore the names of his mother's brother and uncle, both of them named Kálmán. Whether the Romanian mountain Căliman is named after any Hungarian Kálmán I do not know and do not wish to speculate. But forgive me for choosing the far more reasonable, all but explicit, and generally accepted derivation of the alien name Kaliman from the ruler's Hungarian relations.

Your reference to the Romanian "-ilă" in Samuilă, Gerilă, Nilă, etc., as a sign of Romanian influence simply shows you to be unfamiliar with Old Church Slavonic and Medieval Bulgarian (more or less the same thing for much of the Middle Ages). From the implemantation of the Cyrillic alphabet to the 20th-century orthography reform, every Bulgarian name ending on a consonant (whether "l" or any other) was written with the hard sign ă (ъ) at the end (Симеонъ, Калиманъ, Михаилъ, Tодоръ). At first this was probably pronounced as a short vowel, but in modern times it became silent, and was finally dropped from the standardized spelling. Once again, if you want to show derivation of one set of forms from the other, the derivative form may be the Romanian one.

You keep referring to the sources identifying particular people (Peter IV, Ivan Asen I, Kaloyan) as "Vlachs". So it is. But that does not mean that you may automatically assume that the term "Vlach" here signifies the same thing that it did in the time of Vlad Ţepeş (for example). Indeed you ask: How come the one who leads armies of Wallachians and Cumans would take the title of "King of Bulgaria and Wallachia"? Excellent question. And the answer is the opposite of what you seem to be trying to prove. If the term Vlachs or Wallachians here was exclusive in an ethnic sense, or if it were based on a land that was entirely or predominantly inhabited by ethnic Wallachians, this conflict in usage would make little sense. Once again, consider the usage in the sources:

1. Since at least Leo Diaconus (Leon Diakonos) the Bulgarians are commonly referred to as Mysians in classicizing fashion, including Boris II as the basileus of the Mysians, etc. There is no dynastic break allowing for a new line of a new ethnicity coming to the throne.

2. Niketas Choniates explicitly states that the barbarians around the Haimos mountain were known previously as Mysians and now as Wallachians. This area corresponds to the Byzantine theme of Paristrion/Paradounabion, later Moesia, and by implication from Choniates' statement, identifiable as a "Wallachia".

3. The crusader chronicler Ansbert, describing the progress of the army of Frederick Barbarossa (in which he was a participant) through Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire describes Peter and Ivan Asen as Vlachs but also has Peter as ruler of "Wallachia and the greater part of Bulgaria". Which Wallachia is that? Not the one in Thessaly which is too far away, and not the one between the Carpathians and the Danube which does not yet exist. The answer comes from ...

4. the letter from Emperor Henry of Constantinople to Pope Innocent III, in which it is stated that this "Wallachia" was situated across the mountains from Adrianople. In other words, precisely Moesia, the older Paristrion/Paradounabion.

Now you are left with two choices:

(a) assert that the entire population of this "Wallachia" (Moesia) is ethnically exclusively "Vlach", or

(b) accept that people of various ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Bulgarians proper, Cumans, Vlachs proper, and any others) inhabiting a province referred to as "Wallachia" (in this case still Moesia) can be referred to as "Wallachians". Historical sense and multiple examples from all over Europe in the Middle Ages show that the second solution is the viable one. Consequently, the "Wallachians" in question are the population of "Wallachia", that is to say the population of Moesia. Reversing the equivalency explicitly given by Niketas Choniates, we can equally well call them Mysians. So the "Wallachians" who pop up in the sources relating to people from Moesia in the late 12th and early 13th century (but not earlier or later) cannot be considered to be exclusively ethnic "Vlachs". Since, then, such terms cannot be taken at face value without due consideration, it is left to circumstantial pointers such as the names "Asen" and "Belgun" to point to a more precise "ethnic" affiliation.

In order for Moesia to become known as "Wallachia", I think that it must be assumed that much of its population was made up of "Vlachs". This may well have been a new development, and we know that the area underwent the influx of new population (including Pechenegs and Cumans) in the 12th century. But it also means that we cannot treat the sources as indicative of unequivocal and exclusive ethnic identity (to whatever extent that existed). It is also worth asking yourself the question why the sources cease to speak of Wallachia and Wallachians in relation to the Second Bulgarian Empire after the first generation of its rulers. The disappearance of the old Byzantine administrative division into Bulgaria and Moesia ("Wallachia") is a more likely explanation than yet another major demographic change.

As to Kaloyan's title. First of all you have to keep in mind the undeniable problems with the meaning of the terms "Wallachia" and "Wallachians" outlined above. Second, and more important, ask yourself this: did Geoffroi de Villehardouin, did Robert de Clari, did Henry of Constantinople, did Ansbert, did Niketas Choniates crown Kaloyan emperor of "such-and-such"? No. Pope Innocent III crowned Kaloyan "rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum" or "rex Bulgarie et Blachie" through his Cardinal Leo. Kaloyan thanked the pope and called himself "imperator Bulgarorum et Blachorum" or "imperator Bulgariae et Blachie" in document after document. Read the instances in the letters again. And note that in the article the title is enclosed by quotation marks showing direct citation of the usage found in the relevant sources, which are those connected with the issuing authority (the Pope), and the ruler himself (Kaloyan). This is why your repeated reversal of the elements is utterly unjustified and represents tampering with the historical evidence. I am correcting it yet again, with an additional note that should address some of your concern, but remain faithful to the evidence of the sources.

Please keep into consideration the intended objectivity of Wikipedia and confine your edits to factual correctness.

Imladjov 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Question. I'm still not sure whether your argument on Moesia/Wallachia refers to the region between the mountains (Stara Planina) and the Danube, i.e. modern Northern Bulgaria or that territory plus some of what we today call Wallachia in Romania. As you mentioned somewhere, Kaloyan's sway extended across the Danube. (Kaloyan)

The argument is not mine, it has been posited by various scholars including Zlatarski for a very long time (e.g., Istorija na bălgarskata dăržava, vol. 2, pp. 456-457, n. 3). The argument is based on the contemporary testimony of Niketas Choniates, who asserts that the people formerly called Mysians were now (end of 12th century) called Wallachians, which is supported by various sources, most notably a contemporary letter of Emperor Henry of Constantinople to Pope Innocent III, where Wallachia is the land across the mountains from Adrianople. In other words, Roman Moesia equals this particular Wallachia, which is located between the Danube to its north, and the Stara Planina chain to its south. Because of this location, of the usage of Mysians (traditional classicizing reference to the Bulgarians in Byzantine sources since the second half of the 10th century), and of the frequent (and often exclusive) use of "Wallachians" in contemporary Greek (Byzantine) and Latin (Crusader) sources of all kinds, various scholars have argued that the "Wallachians" of these sources are really the Bulgarians. While this is logical to an extent, it probably grossly marginalizes the presence and participation of the Wallachians proper (that is to say what we may call in retrospect ethnic Wallachians) in these events. A more balanced and factually safer approach would be to conclude that the term "Wallachians" designates the inhabitants of this particular "Wallachia", many of whom would have been ethnic Wallachians and many of whom would have been of Slavic or Turkic or even Greek descent. These terms are extremely fluid and rarely, if ever, carry the more concrete connotation of their counterparts in modern times. In contemporary territorial terms, it should be noted that both Niketas Choniates and the crusader chronicler Ansbert indicate that, for all the interchangeability of "Mysians", "Wallachians", "Bulgarians", there were also, in given contexts, two distinct territories (former Byzantine themes) referred to as "Wallachia" (as above) and "Bulgaria" (which at this time comprised Braničevo, Niš, Vidin, Serdica, Skopje, and Ohrid, among others), which adds a further geographic aspect to the discussion of such terms. So these terms have exclusive and inclusive, precise and imprecise meanings, and can refer to ethnic or geographical realities in a fashion that often (as in this case) does not allow any certainty of interpretation. Given this utmost ambivalence of the sources, recognized by specialists in the field (see for example Kazhdan below), I think we have to keep this article free from misleading or biased inferences of what the sources may mean in once case and what in another. To clarify my position, I restate: Kalojan and his brothers may well have been ethnically "Wallachian", but we cannot demonstrate this on the basis of the sources. The same is true of the possibility that they may have been ethnically "Bulgarian" or anything else. A recent book by István Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, Cambridge, 2005, which places some faith in the ethnic connotation of such terms, concludes that "in sum, the Asenids were a Cuman dynasty, whose members became Vlakhs in the twelfth century and Bulgars in the thirteenth" (41). For a very balanced approach, I would also recommend John V.A. Fine, Jr., The Late Medieval Balkans, 12-13. Fine, who is probably the leading expert on medieval and modern Balkan history in the English-speaking world, points out the incompatibility of such terms with modern perceptions of ethnicity, and considers, among other things, the possibility that the "Wallachian" terminology is in part due either to the origin of the dynasty or to an intentional slurring of the enemy by hostile sources (the Byzantines had a particularly poor opinion of "Wallachians", as seen for example in Kekaumenos' Strategikon, cap. 186). The nature and extend of the rule of the Second Bulgarian Empire north of the Danube is in many ways nebulous and hampered by extremely laconic sources. At this time the area was populated basically by Cumans, and may have been referred to (though not exclusively) as Cumania (covering all or parts of both later Wallachia and Moldavia). For the territory of the state, the standard work is that of Petăr Koledarov, Političeska geografija na srednovekovnata bălgarska dăržava, vol. 2, BAN, Sofia, 1989. Although it contains some antiquated notions (e.g., the equation of sebastokrator Kalojan with Kaliman Asen II), it seems quite reliable on territorial matters.Imladjov 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite a thorough explanation indeed! Accidentally, I do possess a book by J. Fine but only "The Early medieval Balkans" ... Will have a look to see if there is anything on the subject at all.

--"The Early Medieval Balkans" is a great book, but it will be of no help on this subject, as it does not come up until the events of the late 12th century. The discussion is short, even in the second volume, and Fine essentially places more weight on showing it to be irrelevant than on reconciling the evidence. The main problem with these two volumes is that due to restrictions from the publishing house, footnotes and annotations are kept to a minimum, so it is often difficult to follow up information.Imladjov 12:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaloyan edits

Greier,

Here are the two edits I entered immediately after the above posting:

I changed:

"The pope was not willing to make concessions of that scale, and when his envoy, Cardinal Leo, arrived in Bulgaria, he anointed the Archbishop Vasilij of Tărnovo as Primate of Bulgaria, and crowned Kaloyan as "King (rex) of Wallachians and Bulgarians", instead of emperor."

to

"The pope was not willing to make concessions of that scale, and when his envoy, Cardinal Leo, arrived in Bulgaria, he anointed the Archbishop Vasilij of Tărnovo as Primate of Bulgaria, and crowned Kaloyan as rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum ("King of Bulgarians and Wallachians") or rex Bulgarie et Blachie ("King of Bulgaria and Wallachia"), instead of emperor. (Crusader sources often refer to Kaloyan as ruler of "Wallachians and Bulgarians" or simply of "Wallachians", but the meaning of the term in this context is disputed; papal and native sources mostly use "Bulgarians and Wallachians" or simply "Bulgarians".)"

This is factually accurate and incorporates your point

The second edit is a logical and stylistic one:

I changed:

"Kaloyan led his army composed of Wallachians and Bulgarians (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans and newly raised Wallachians) southwards to relieve the siege of Adrianople by the Latins."

to

"Kaloyan led his army composed of Wallachians and Bulgarians (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans) southwards to relieve the siege of Adrianople by the Latins."

Since Kaloyan's army was composed of Wallachians (whatever that measn) and Bulgarians (ditto), it makes no sense to add that they were reinforced by newly raised Wallachians. Since these were Kaloyan's immediate subjects, they are not a reinforcing group like the allied or federate Cumans. If you wish to stress the mobilization of new troops, what makes you think they were of any different composition than the regular armies assembled by Kaloyan. By the way, the description of Kaloyan's last campaigns in 1207 includes reference to a particularly large force which included Bulgarians, Wallachians, Cumans, Turks, and even Russians.

Something else which I am about to change:

"Ioanitsa (variously rendered Ioannitza, Ioanitsa, Ioanica, Ivanica), a diminutive form of Ivan or Ioan (equivalent to "John" in both Bulgarian and Romanian)"

to

"Ioanitsa (Ioanica), variously rendered Ioannitza, Ivanitsa (Ivanica), a diminutive form of Ivan or Ioan (equivalent to "John" in both Bulgarian and Romanian)"

because:

1. Ioanica represents the scholarly transliteration of Ioanitsa, and should be kept immediately after it.

2. There is no reason to repeat Ioanitsa in the list.

3. Ivanica is the scholarly transliteration of Ivanitsa, and should be kept immediately after it.

Imladjov 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

It`s clear that we would never agree on the naming topic. For me white is white, for you white is actually black... Ok, let`s use your logic, that white is actually black...

Kaloyan led his army composed of Wallachians and Bulgarians (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans).

Your comment: Since Kaloyan's army was composed of Wallachians (whatever that measn) and Bulgarians.

Removed any mention of Bulgarians because:

1. by "Wallachian" we already mean Bulgarian. 2. because the sources say:

but raised a great force of Comans and Wallachians. And when it came to three weeks after Christmas, he sent these men into the land of Roumania to help those at Adrianople and Demotica; and the latter, being now in force, grew bolder and rode abroad with the greater assurance.

Thierri of Tenremonde, who was chief and constable, made a foray on the fourth day before the feast of St. Mary Candlemas (30th January 1206); and he rode all night, having six score knights with him, and left Rusium with but a small garrison. When it was dawn, he came to a village where the Comans and Wallachians were encamped, and surprised them in such sort that those who were in the village were unaware of their coming. They killed a good many of the Comans and Wallachians, and captured some forty of their horses; and when they had done this execution, they turned back towards Rusium.

And on that very night the Comans and Wallachians had ridden forth to do us hurt; and there were some seven thousand of them. They came in the morning before Rusium, and were there a lono, space; and the garrison, which was but small, closed the gates, and mounted the walls; and the Comans and Wallachians turned back. They had not gone more than a league and a half from the city, when they met the company of the French under the command of Thierri of Tenremonde. So soon as the French saw them advancing, they formed into their four battalions, with intent to draw into Rusium in slow time; for they knew that if, by God's grace, they could come thither, they would then be in safety.

The Comans, and the Wallachians, and the Greeks of the land rode towards them, for they were in very great force. And they came upon the rear-guard, and began to harass it full sorely. Now the rear-guard was formed of the men of Thierri of Loos, who was seneschal, and had returned to Constantinople, and his brother Villain was now in command. .........................

No mention of any Bulgarian, only of Wallachians (be it that by "Wallachian" he meant "Bulgarian", or "Cuman" or "Petchenegs" or anyu ethnicity). Correct?

3. Your comment: it makes no sense to add that they were reinforced by newly raised Wallachians My add and newly raised Wallachians stays, since the sources say: raised a great force of Comans and Wallachians. Who are you, after 800 years, to correct Villehardouin?!? Huh?!?... Again, may those Wallachians be chinese or zulu. As long as it says Wallachians, we must write Wallachian.

And almost forgot: What does the Pope say about that bulgarian/cuman???

Nos autem audito quod de nobili urbis Romae prosapia progenitores tui originem traxerint

'qui ex nobili Romanorum prosapia diceris descendisse'

No further comments... Greier 08:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Noble Romans

I want you to consider the redundancy and stylistic inadequacy of the statement:

"Kaloyan led his army composed of Wallachians and Bulgarians (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans and newly raised Wallachians) southwards to relieve the siege of Adrianople by the Latins."

If the army is composed by Wallachians, you do not need to add "newly raised Wallachians" to the Cumans who are brought in as external reinforcement. This has nothing to do with what these Wallachians are, just with the way of phrasing sensible English. Either both the Cumans and the Wallachians are newly raised, or the Wallachians are the same as before and the Cumans are the reinforcement.

As for your comment that you are justified to remove "Bulgarians" from the description of the army, kindly recall that before you chose to insert descriptives here, I had referred simply to Kaloyan's army: "As the Latin Emperor Baldwin I began to subdue rebel cities, Kaloyan led his army (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans) southwards to relieve the siege of Adrianople by the Latins." This is both factually correct and does not involve contentious issues open to dispute or interpretation. If you believe Kaloyan's subjects to be pure ethnic Wallachians, then so be it, "his army" surely does not preclude such a state of affairs. However the point is contentious and there is no need to complicate a very casual statement with this, which is already discussed earlier in the article. If you wish to emphasize the language of the source, why not quote it, e.g., And Kaloyan "raised a great force of Comans and Wallachians" and proceeded to etc...?

Your reference to Pope Innocent III's description of Kaloyan as descended from Roman nobles (or more specifically nobles from the city of Rome) is really not something that proves Vlach ethnicity. Remember your own statement about "how some sheperds (that`s what sources say they were) from the Hameus, would name theyr child after a hungarian king, wich in his turn was baptised with a latin name". Do these sound like Roman nobles to you? The pope is out to flatter. His reference to a "Romanness" in Kaloyan is probably as invented as is Kaloyan's descent from the rulers of the First Bulgarian Empire (a suggestion first posited by the pope and then gladly taken up by Kaloyan, who started referring to them as his progenitors instead of, as earlier, his predecessors). Moreover, while everyone would agree that the Wallachians are descendants of the Latinized population of the western and northern Balkans (and possibly even Dacia), identifying them as nobility from the city of Rome per se would be quite a stretch. And which are they, of the two flattering fictions supplied by the pope? (This is a rhetorical question, I know that the answer is: neither.)

It is obvious that pursuing this discussion with you is futile. The evidence (or much of it) is out there for all to see, and so is your historical sense and linguistic knowledge. For my part, I continue to make sure that the article is factually accurate. Imladjov 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Further note: dividing the sources between memoirs and diplomatic is non-constructive. Villehardouin, de Clari, and the letters of Emperor Henry are all Crusader sources, and provide much the same usage, though some may be memoirs/histories and others letters. Moreover, you are unable to prove that all the native sources are diplomatic, and there is more to this than the replies of Kaloyan to the Pope, including literary and sigyllographic evidence. Any attempt at characterizing the sources' "sense" as "administrative" or "ethnic" departs from fact and enters the realm of loaded speculation and bias. If you continue to insert such elements, they will be edited out in accordance with the intended neutrality of information. In the standard reference work on Byzantine studies, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Alexander Kazhdan (who cannot be accused of Bulgarian or Romanian national bias) states (s.v. "Vlachs"): "It remains under discussion whether the Byz. were able or willing to distinguish between Vlachs and Bulgarians; the identity of the Blachoi who played the leading role in the revolt against the Byz. in 1185 (Nik.Chon. 368.53-57) is thus unclear." This is the official stand of current specialized international scholarship, and Wikipedia is not a place to assert, insinuate, or argue out nationalist aspirations. Imladjov 13:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of editions to statements repeatedly posted by Greier: The following emendations are required by factual accuracy and neutrality. For further information, please refer also to the foregoing discussion.

Statement: "When referring to Kaloyan's realm, Crusader sources (memoirs of Geoffroy de Villehardouin 1, Henri de Valenciennes, Robert de Clary) refer to Kaloyan as King of Wallachia, ruler of Wallachians and leader of Wallachian armies, and sometimes also as ruler of Wallachians and Bulgarians/Wallachians and Cumans/Wallachians, Bulgarians and Cumans."

Objection: There is no actual reference to Kaloyan as ruler of "Wallachians and Cumans" or "Wallachians, Bulgarians and Cumans". These terms describe the composition of the armed forces employed by Kaloyan in Thrace. A further note is warranted on the usage in Villehardouin, who can be shown to use the terms "Bulgarians" and "Wallachians" interchangeably. In describing Kaloyan's forces headed for the battle of Adrianople, Villehardouin refers to them as "the Comans, with the Wallachians and Greeks" (page 96). After the battle, and within the same campaign season, the same force is described differently: "the Comans departed to their own country. And he, with all his host of Bulgarians and Greeks, marched against the marquis towards Salonika" (page 102). Unless Kaloyan inexplicably switched the components of his army, it is reasonable to infer that the terms "Wallachians" and "Bulgarians" stand for the same group, and therefore neither is ethnically specific.

Statement: "Diplomatic sources (between the Pope and Ioanitsa, or between the Pope and the crusaders), when refering to the administrative elements of his empire, they name Kaloyan as ruler of (omnium) Bulgarorum atque Blachorum ("(all) Bulgarians and Wallachians"), of (totius) Bulgarie ac Blachie ("(all) Bulgaria and Wallachia"), or simply of Bulgaria/Bulgarians."

Objection: (1) These usages are not restricted to diplomatic correspondence alone. The lead seals of Kaloyan, of his predecessor Ivan Asen I, and of his successor Boril, all employed domestically, read simply цр блъгаром ("emperor of the Bulgarians"). I am not including the further testimony of later literary references. (2) the assertion "when refering to the administrative elements of his empire" (sic), is factually inaccurate, since it is not possible to show that the ethnonyms "Bulgarians and Wallachians" and "Bulgarians" refer to administrative jurisdictions. Therefore, this is an example of loaded interpolation.

Statement: "The same sources, when speaking refering to the ethnic character of his empire, mostly mention Walachians and call Ioanitsa "the Vlach Lord" (Blachorum domino) ."

Objection: (1) These are not the same sources, this is a letter of Emperor Henry of Constantinople to Pope Innocent III. It has nothing to do with native usage or with the correspondence between Kaloyan and the Pope. Its point of view, its geographic and cultural origin, and its usage of the terms, all correspond with those of the contemporary Crusader primary sources listed first (de Villehardouin, de Clari, and de Valenciennes). (2) the assertion "when speaking refering to the ethnic character of his empire" (sic), is factually inaccurate, since it is not possible to show that the terms "Wallachian" and "Wallachians" (the precise meaning of which has been disputed) in these texts are intended to convey ethnicity as opposed to geographic origin or ethnicity in anything like the modern sense. Therefore, this is an example of loaded interpolation. (3) While the cited text does identify Kaloyan as a Wallachian elsewhere, the phrase Blachorum domino translates to "lord of the Wallachians", not "the Vlach Lord".

Statement: "geographically, the medieval Wallachia in question ... together with the distinct Byzantine theme of Bulgaria further west (Choniates, 488), overlaps with the former Roman province of Moesia (Greek Mysia, Choniates, 481), possibility supported by later chronicles, such as the Venetian chronicle of Paolo Ramusio, (finished in 1573, printed in Italian and Latin from 1604 to 1634), who would state (declare, affirm) that Mysia was composed of the provinces of Wallachia and Bulgaria ."

Objection: (1) the assertion that 'Wallachia together with the theme of Bulgaria overlaps with Moesia alters and contradicts the original text of the article. (2) The same assertion is supported by the late work of Paolo Ramusio, which indeed states inferiorem Mysiam tenebat, quae Vlachiae et Bulgariae provincias complectitur ("held Moesia Inferior, which comprised of the provinces of Wallachia and Bulgaria"). Although I have not been able to verify this particular passage (which is not among citations of Ramusio's work available to me), I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. However, the statement of this late source contradicts, rather than corroborates two contemporary sources, namely Niketas Choniates and Ansbert. The article text cited Choniates, page 488, where one reads οθεν συδ’ ηγαπων ει τα εαυτων εχουσι σωζειν και την της Μυσιας μονην περιβαλουνται τοπαρχησιν, αλλ’α ειμη και τα Ρωμαιων μεγιστα βλαψουσι και την των Μυσων και των Βουλγαρων δυναστειαν εις εν συναψουσιν ως παλλαι ποτε ην, ουδαμως ηνειχοντο ("[the barbarians] were no longer content with that, whether they might save their enterprise completely, and whether they may acquire the rule over Moesia alone, but they would not rest until they caused the greatest harm on the Romans and united into one the rule over Moesians and Bulgarians, as it had been in the past"). Choniates is corroborated by his slightly earlier contemporary Ansbert, page 58, where one finds Kalopetrus, Blacorum et maxime partis Bulgarorum in hortis Thracie domnus ("Kalopetrus, lord of the Wallachians and of the greater part of the Bulgarians in the orchards of Thrace"), providing a similar distinction between the territories inhabited by "Wallachians" and "Bulgarians". Ramusio does not corroborate either, and in fact he contradicts both. His testimony cannot be presented as supporting that of Choniates, which is both inaccurate and misleading. Contemporary sources are consistent with the territorial distinction between a Wallachia and Bulgaria: Ansbert and other sources on the Third Crusade describe the troops of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa entering Bulgaria from the west, near the confluence of the Danube and the Morava, placing "Bulgaria" west of Philippopolis and around Niš. The Emperor Henry, on the other hand, places the land of the "Wallachians" across the mountains from Adrianople, that is to say in Moesia (Paristrion), in his letter to the Pope (Patrologia Latina CCXV, letter 131). These allocations are also consistent with the territorial placement of the respective Byzantine provinces (themes) in the Balkans. (3) Placing an emphasis on a late source like Ramusio needs to be qualified and distinguished from the truly contemporary evidence. Moreover, other late sources, like Mauro Orbini's Il regno degli Slavi (published a little earlier, in 1601, in Pesaro) can be cited with equal worth and to the opposite effect: Orbini explicitly cites Choniates as his source here, and yet rarely mentions "Wallachians", while consistently substituting "Bulgarians" for Choniates' Mysoi and Blachoi. For example, one finds Iuanco Bulgaro ("Ivanko the Bulgarian", pages 456 and 458), Chryso Bulgaro ("Chrysos the Bulgarian", page 455), Gioanni Rè de' Bulgari ("Ioanitsa the king of the Bulgarians", pages 457 and 458). In the very rare occasions in which "Wallachians" are mentioned, they seem to appear in the place of the confederate Cumans, for example che haueua posto nell' infidie molti Valachi (at the battle of Adrianople, page 458). In the presence of truly contemporary sources, the value of such late and derivative testimonies (and Ramusio is very explicitly dependent on Villehardouin, down to the very subdivision of the work) is almost negligible. I have not tried to edit out the reference to Ramusio because of bibliographic interest, but his work's use in the statement above is inaccurate and misleading. Moreover, whatever Ramusio may "state (declare, affirm)" (sic) about the geographical relationship between Moesia, Wallachia, and Bulgaria, is his inference from his sources, or his borrowing of some earlier writer's inference. That does not mean it is the meaning of the earlier sources, which it contradicts.

The foregoing demonstrates the ambiguous and controversial nature of the ethnic and geographical labels found in the source evidence and is offered as justification for continued corrections to purposefully or accidentally misleading additions posted by the aforementioned user; the corresponding editions seek to establish conformity with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, which forbids the misleading representation of one-sided opinion as fact. Imladjov 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Note on further edits by Greier

(1) Kaloyan is not defined as rex or dominus of "Wallachians and Cumans", or of the "Wallachians, Cumans, and Bulgarians", for which see discussion above.

(2) The inclusion of an example showing the interchangeability of the seemingly ethnic terms "Bulgarians" and "Wallachians" in Villehardouin's work demonstrates the fact that these terms are unreliable in a purely ethnic sense. This is pertinent to the discussion at hand, and it clarifies, rather than misleads. You re-introduced the ethnic controversy and drew attention to the sources. Therefore, removing this example represents suppression of the source evidence.

(3) The removal of the testimony of the lead seals of the rulers from Ivan Asen I to Boril (and of the literary evidence from the latter's reign) is likewise a suppression of pertinent evidence. Kaloyan reigned between Ivan Asen I and Boril, and all three are described in the same fashion by the Crusader sources. Therefore the ways in which Ivan Asen I, Kaloyan, and Boril are described on their own domestically-used seals is pertinent to a listing of how the sources identify the persons involved. Similarly with the Synodik of Boril. At any rate all of this evidence bears far more directly upon the discussion than either Ramusio or Orbini.

(4) The sentence "the medieval Wallachia in question ... together with the Byzantine theme of Bulgaria further west (Choniates, 488) overlaps with the former Roman province of Moesia (Greek Mysia, Choniates, 481)" directly contradicts the very source it cites. Please read Choniates' testimony reproduced in the discussion above and corroborated by its actual contemporaries (e.g., Ansbert and Emperor Henry). The identification of Moesia as containing both "Wallachia" and "Bulgaria" is not based on Choniates, but on Ramusio, whose late work is actually quite worthless to this discussion, given the presence of actual 12th and 13th century sources that testify to the contrary.

(5) Orbini was himself controversial in his own time, but his work is now considered a valuable compilation by historians, and hardly merits the designation "pseudo-historical" (especially when set against the standards of his time). It is no less worthy of mention than the much less influential Ramusio, and my point was simply that such later works not only do not bear directly upon the discussion, but disagree. If one is to disparage Orbini, that should be properly annotated. I do not agree fully with either testimony, but included Orbini for comparison to Ramusio. On Orbini's identity and views, I recommend J. Fine, When Ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, Ann Arbor, 2006. At any rate, a Wikipedia article on Kaloyan does not seem to be the right place to debate Orbini and his work. Imladjov 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Imladjov, do you have access to any maps regarding the section below? Kaloyan* 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Trans-Danubian territories in I and II Bulgarian Empires

As fars as I am concerned, Kaloyan's and his brothers' sway extended across the Daunbe. This was the case for other rulers in both the I and II Bulgarian empires starting with Asparuh, Krum and Simeon. Do we have concrete information about those territories accompagnied by some maps? Kaloyan* 04:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

About the inclusion of the Romanian form of the name Kaloyan

There is no medieval document in Romanian language, which includes the name of the medieval ruler Kaloyan. According to user AlexDan there is Romanian folklore tradition of usage of name Ioniţă Caloian, but there isn't evidence yet that this folklore tradition has any direct connection with the historical figure of this concrete medieval ruler. Still more, it remains unclear when and where exactly this tradition was recorded and how it was published. Until now there isn't also any citation of concrete text of this tradition, proving that it is relevant in the article about the medieval ruler Kaloyan. I hope user AlexDan will offer at least one argument that there is Romanian folklore, dedicated to the concrete historical figure of tsar Kaloyan, otherwise this information has to be deleted from the article as irrelevant.

On the other hand the form of the name of Kaloyan in contemporary Romanian historiography is irrelevant as a source for the etymology and medieval tradition of this name. User AlexDan insists on inclusion of this name on the ground that Kaloyan was part of the Romanian history, but in fact Kaloyan ruled territories, which are parts of many other contemporary countries (Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Serbia, Republic of Macedonia) and is part of their history too. The part of his realm, which belongs to present-day Romania (not clearly defined part of Wallachia), embraced less than a third of the territory of Kaloyan's state. Moreover, there is no practice in English Wikipedia to list all existing popular contemporary forms of the names of medieval rulers.

I hope that AlexDan will stop his anachronistic "romanization" of this article. - Jackanapes 10:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two parts in my phrase: in Romanian tradition there is a king Caloian, apart from other customs such as Caloian. Illiterate peasants could not read about him, so it's a 600 years old tradition. This part is referenced with Giurescu. This name (Ioniţă Caloian) established for more than 600 years in Romanian, is also found in Romanian historiography. No Ioanitsa, no Kaloyan. This is referenced with Xenopol. If Turks or greeks would like to add names like let's say Iani Kalojan, because he is part of their national history (although he wasn't greek or turk but vlach or maybe cuman) it's ok with me, servers have enough space. What are you doing is vandalising a sourced sentence without bringing even one source for your claims. If you cannot understand this simple matter it's your problem. And if you want more sources I have them: Iorga, Constantiniu etc.--Alex:Dan 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to prove your statements with quotations of academic publications. Give us at least one academic record of Romanian folklore, which is dedicated to "king Caloian" as historical ruler. Sorry, but until now you have failed to give a relevant proof of your claims, there are only naked words. Cite the concrete passage of Giurescu at last! Note - we are seeking not for examples of usage of name "Caloian" in Romanian folklore tradition like the quoted case of the custom Caloian, but for the figure of the historical medieval ruler Kaloyan in it. Please, try to understand that only the existence of the name Caloian in Romanian folklore, recorded in modetn times without direct connection with the concrete medieval ruler can't be acceptable argument for the supposed medieval Romanian usage of this name, it could be later borrowing for example. Also you have to give us at least one Romanian document, created before Modern epoch (i. e. before the begining of the Enlightenment and national awakening era, 18th century), which contains the name of tsar Kaloyan. Finally, you have to understand that any modern form of the name Kaloyan, used by any modern national historiography, is totally irrelevant as a source for the etymology and medieval tradition of this name because it is anachronism. Therefore such an inclusion is out of place in this concrete article. Moreover, the Second Bulgarian Empire wasn't Romanian state, it wasn't even Wallachian state. As it is already written in the article, the Vlach hyperinterpretation concerns period of only two decades, in fact it neglects the domestic tradition, it is in contradiction with the whole earlier and later historical context and even is in conflict with the meanings of the name Vlach in this period and territory, get the case of Choniates for example. Because of this any anachronistic Romanization could not be more than a nationalistic POV. - Jackanapes 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Have to check at the library, so it should take some time, as I am a little bit crowded now. (finally some decent arguments!) --Alex:Dan 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaloyan and Armenian?

Does anyone know if Kaloyan had any Armenian blood?--Moosh88 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read such theory until now. AFAIK there are Bulgarian, Vlach and Cuman theories. - Vulgarian 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Romanslayer?

This is the first time I've heard Kaloyan nicknamed thus. It would be wise to source the statement that he indeed had this nickname. LaughingSkull (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that a name or term that the source says Kaloyan "called himself" is not the same thing as being "known as" that name. This Roman-slayer name should be moved to within the body of the article and be clearly stated that he called himself this. He clearly was not widely known as this name.--Tataryn (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

--As a greek I find it highly offensive that the article now calls him "greek-slayer", considering that at the request of the Bulgarian nation we erased all mention of "bulgar-slayer" from Basil II, even from our school textbooks. If this is not even historically accurate it must be here just to incite race hatred. Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1220:8700:A855:7C26:E78A:7169 (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

I want a neutral opinion about the inclusion of the Romanian name in the lead (the thread below) (SamiraJ (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

• Comment Considering that almost the entire lead section is now taken up with a discussion of naming, my answer would be no, it would not be appropriate to add more of this to the lead. However, it would seem prudent at this point to make a separate Names section to include all the relevant information, and restore the lead to being an actual summary of the article contents, which right now is limited to the first 2 sentences. The real problem here is the fact that the lead section does not contain any of the information that it should (i.e., what is important about Kaloyan of Bulgaria and his reign), not whether or not more names are appropriate. siafu (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have noticed the same for at least 3 or 4 Bulgarian rulers. I have tweaked the lead and left the names in the early life section, although it might really warrant a separate Name/s section. How do you find it now? --Laveol ^T 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead looks a lot better, certainly. IMO, if there is a complicated point like, in this case, the use of names, it should be shifted out of the lead section to somewhere else becaus this somewhat avoids the thorny issue of what is notable enough to include. A separate section can have room for much less notable items without such controversy. siafu (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've created a Name section and I've included the Romanian name there too. Do you agree with this? (SamiraJ (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

I have just tweaked it a bit since he was clearly not called by his Romanian name at the time. He had a Latin and a Greek (Byzantine) name. The Romanian one is coined by present-day (maybe better to use the term modern) historians. --Laveol ^T 17:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the Romanian name should not be used in the lead. Since it is not a name used by him or during his time, I would say that it is not notable enough. However, I see no reason why it should not be mentioned in the name section (with the disclaimer that it is a modern name). Eomund (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Not in lead: put in "Name" section - The lead section, according to WP:Lead should be a very high-level summary of the article. Including variant names should be avoided in the lead, unless the names are very common. The Romanian name does not appear to be common enough to be in the lead. Instead, the Romanian name (and any other variant names) can be discussed in the existing "Name" section in the article. Of course, all alternative names must be supported by WP:Reliable sources. --Noleander (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Romanian name in the lead

Kaloyan of Bulgaria was an ethnic Vlach (Vlach = old exonym for Romanian) [2], so the insertion of Romanian name is perfectly legitimate. The name is is used 44 times] on Google Books. (SamiraJ (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2011. (UTC)

Could you be kind enough to point us to English-language sources that use such a name? It could be relevant only to a section discussing Romanian historians' view on the subject and that is it. Although it is a fringe view and I am not sure as to whether it deserves a mention. I reverted you because of the fact that Romanian warriors come and add the name from time to time just like that. And it is not relevant to the article. Thank you. --Laveol ^T 10:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an English language source. But it does not have to be an English language source, for example do you have an English language source that uses the name Добруджа? (SamiraJ (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Babeș-Bolyai University? Oh, and that is nice. I just knew you would be of that type. What does Dobrudzha have to do with this particular article? WP:OCE. --Laveol ^T 11:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to point that relevant foreign names does not mandatory mean alternative names in English language sources (SamiraJ (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Irrelevant. Do you really fail to grasp the notion of a local name? Do Bulgarians living in Dobrudzha call the region Dobrudzha? Did you read WP:OCE? Is there a difference between a medieval ruler and a geographical region? Is that ruler called Kaloyan of Bulgaria/Kaloyan etc by pretty much every scholar? Are you trying to promote a fringe view? Yes. --Laveol ^T 12:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what Fringe view means. I am talking about the Romanian form of the name, not about an alternative English name. Something similar to the Serbian name from here [3] or with the Hungarian name from here [4] (SamiraJ (talk))

And is the Romanian name different from the actual one? The relevant name would be the Byzantine one since it is how we got to the Beautiful Ivan/Ioan version. And even it is represented adequately in the lead, although it might actually need a separate name section instead. What you are trying to do is to promote a fringe view to two interconnected articles. And your only argument is that other crap exists. I do not know why Bayezid has a Serbian name in the title, but if you ask me it should not be there. But since this is another article you have to discuss this article here and provide valid arguments for your edits. You can discuss the other article on its own talkpage. I am tired of petty tries for adding just about every Balkan language version of each and every name. Bayezid is a ruler of the Ottoman Empire, so the only proper language version is that in Ottoman Turkish. I will ignore every other example of WP:OCE you come up with. --Laveol ^T 12:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That is just a theory or opinion if you want, not a fact, should I mention you this one hundred times? Not to mention that other theories for the Bulgarian and Cuman origin are more general than this for the Vlach. However all these is just theories - Kaloyan himself self-identified only as King of Bulgaria and never as Vlach and that's it. Dinner for three (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a foreign name, not a theory, and its use is proved. (SamiraJ (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

There is already redirect in the page for the dispute of the origins - Bulgarian, Cuman, Vlach, Armenian, Byzatine which is enough. That name you want to insert in the intro is extremely inappropriate for a person who never in his life said that he is Romanian or Vlach at least. Dinner for three (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless demonstrated to be contemporaneous with the person in question (the quoted Romanian books are 20 or 21 century publications if I am not wrong), that Romanian version of the name is quite irrelevant to the article. If its usage could be traced to 12-13 century, then it would be appropriate to mention it in the article's main body. Apcbg (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it has not to be traced to the 12th-13th century. Second Bulgarian Empire is a modern term too (SamiraJ (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Yes it needs some contemporaneous usage to be relevant. Second Bulgarian Empire is common English usage in English Wikipedia. The Romanian name form could claim no common usage in the English language. However, I could accept the mentioning of "name used by the modern Romanian etc." in the main body. Apcbg (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit

@Borsoka: Hi. I have started the requested copy edit. If you are unhappy with any changes or I lose a meaning, feel free to query me here, or just to ask what the heck I am doing. I will also post the occasional query.

• "The legate crowned Kaloyan "King of the Bulgarians and Vlachs" on 8 November 1204, but he continued to regard his realm as an empire." Who is "he"? The legate or Kaloyan? (Or the Pope or the King of Hungary?) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I modified the text to clarify that it was Kaloyan who regarded his realm an empire even after he was crowned "only" king. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Thank you. Next query: "After his allies' defeat, Kaloyan concluded a peace treaty with Alexios III". Do the sources indicate an actual alliance between Kaloyan and the Cumans? Earlier the article says that they crossec Bulgaria without permission and I would guess left a trail of chaos. A reader may think "Allies? The text hasn't mentioned any allies." Gog the Mild (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Hi. Given your comments on GOCE I am pleasantly surprised at what good shape the article seems to be in. A lot of good work has been done here. Nevertheless I am being bold in places; do query if you can't see why I have made any specific change. The copy edit is likely to take me several more days, and I will run through the whole article several times - so for example the fact that I have already made several edits to the lead does not indicate that I am finished with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I modified the text. I also changed the reference to the Bulgarian name of Philippopolis ([5]). Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"Most inhabitants of Veria were murdered or captured on his orders". Does "captured" mean enslaved? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• The source says: "...some of the inhabitants of [Veria] were killed, others taken captive and forcefully moved to the lands by the Danube". Borsoka (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: "The commoners were delivered in chains to "Vlachia"." I am inclined to change "delivered, but my query is: what is the reason that Vlachia is in inverted commas? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• The following edit may explain the use of commas: ([6]). Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Boril gave the daughter of Kaloyan and his wife in marriage to the Latin Emperor Henry in 1211. Her name is unknown." I find this confusing. If Boril gave Kaloyan's daughter to Henry, how could he give his wife? The article has just stated that Boril married Koloyan's widow. And his daughter's name is Maria. I think this needs revising, or am I missing something? Rereading, is that 'the daughter of Kaloyan and Anna in marriage...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I modified the text. The names of Kaloyan's wife and daughter are unknown, according to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent modification. You are the subject expert, I am happy to take your word for it. I didn’t check with my sources, which aren’t that reliable anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just finishing a 'stand back' review (although I am picking up several minor items as I go). There were areas I was going to query with you, but I have been bold instead. More later.Gog the Mild (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I think that I am done. This is a fine article. I didn't feel that it needed very much copy editing. I am also pleasantly surprised at how stable it is. I will go through it again in a couple of days when I have 'fresh eyes'.

I assume that you are aware that the references need putting in order? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive review. I hope I managed to put all references in order. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Vásáry 2005, full reference missing.

The full reference for "Vásáry 2005" seems to be missing. (Hohum ^@) 19:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I added the reference. Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

MoS: titles of people

"Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases: ... When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II"

And so in this article in "According to Kaloyan's letter to the pope..." the word pope should be capitalised as referring "to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name". Similarly in several other cases. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kaloyan of Bulgaria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 00:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y
• No missing citations Y

Prose Suggestions

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

• Theodor (who had been crowned emperor under the name Peter) suggest deleting the content in parentheses, as it is [IMO] to far in depth for the lede. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• The date of his release is not known.[10] He was back in his homeland when a boyar, Ivanko, murdered Asen in Tarnovo in 1196. suggest:

  The date of his release is not known, however he is known to have been back in his homeland by the time the boyar Ivanko murdered Asen in Tarnovo, in 1196.

• Innocent eagerly entered into correspondence with Kaloyan because the reunification of the Christian denominations under his authority was one of his principal objectives suggest:

  Innocent eagerly entered into correspondence with Kaloyan, hoping to reunify the Bulgarians to the Catholic Church, as reunification with different denominations one of his principal objectives.

• aloyan's seal is depicted on the reverse of the Bulgarian 2 levs banknote, issued in 1999 and 2005 suggest creating a "Legacy" heading and moving this to it.

• @Borsoka: That is all of my suggestions, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and suggestion. My comments are the following:

• I prefer the present version, because Theodor is better known as Peter (but before his coronation he could not be named as such).
• Modified.
• I prefer the present version, because it clarifies that the Pope wanted to expand his authority.
• I preferred to deleted the sentence, because it is trivia.

Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kaloyan Varna.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Kaloyan ethnicity

Hello, since the name of Johannitsa/Ioannitsa Kaloyan is clearly romanian, does anyone have sources about this man's ethnicity? 46.97.168.102 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ioannitsa an exclusively Vlach name?

I saw that there was some talk about this in the edits but all it amounted to was “it says so in a source”. However, that doesn’t make the statement any less incorrect or biased. There is no proof that Ioannitsa is an exclusively Vlach name. You can actually see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diminutives_by_language, that the diminutive -itsa isn’t unique to Vlach/Romanian and is certainly a Slavic influence in the language – “Romanian uses suffixes to create diminutives, most of these suffixes being of Latin or Slavic origin.”

Madgearu’s statement that “The name of the youngest brother, “little John” (Ioniţă), demonstrates that the brothers who started the revolt were Vlachs. The diminutive is Vlach and is not attested among speakers of Bulgarian.” is incorrect. The claim that the diminutive -itsa is Vlach and is not attested among speakers of Bulgarian is, as I showed above, false.

Male names ending in -itsa attested among speakers of Bulgarian: Баица (Baitsa), Балица (Balitsa), Бахица (Bahitsa), Белица (Belitsa), Божица (Bozhitsa), Братица (Bratitsa), Бръзица (Brazitsa), Бурица (Buritsa). Taken from Iordan Zaimov’s “Bulgarian name dictionary” (Български именник), 1988. This is just male names and just ones starting with B, if I were to include all names, male and female, ending in the diminutive -itsa I’d be writing here for days.

Ioannitsa is not an exclusively Vlach name. Saying it is, is unfounded and biased, no matter if it is a quotation or not. Блѫгаринъ (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)