Talk:Second Bulgarian Empire

Map on top of the article

It somehow struck me as an unusual representation to use a map of the empire in its most progressed territorial decline and invasion by the Osman forces in the introduction of the article. For example look at the article on the Roman Empire. The map in the introduction shows the empire in its greatest territorial extent, not in the years where it covered only 1/2 of the Italian peninsula. The same goes for the Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire or any of the empires in wikipedia (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_empires) Should we consider consistency and get a more representative map showing the empire at its greatest territorial extent ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.135.71 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Map

According to this map, Constantinople is in the middle of the Howard Stern Sea and the Danube spills inland. Someone should clean it up. :-) bogdan 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't mock it, it's the Library of Congress!! :) Todor→Bozhinov 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

proposal: add more maps, maybe from Ivan Assen's era —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.0.94 (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

750,000 km squared?

The modern Bulgarian state is 110,000 km squared, so how can this empire be 7 times as large? Any dumb nationalists want to defend this stupidity? Tourskin (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous but the mistake can be explained: at first I have created one infobox for the Bulgarian Empire as a whole and then someone made separate infoboxes for the two Empires and had obviously forgotten to correct the territory. But at its greatest extend the Second Empire covered around 350,000 km2 and I added that figure. Thank you for noticing that stupid mistake :-) --Gligan (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And in the future, please assume good faith :) It's not always "dumb nationalists" and "stupidity", there is no need for attacks and negative classifications, we're just talking about a simple mistake that was promptly corrected. Don't let stress or something else affect your manners. Todor→Bozhinov 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

80 percent literacy rate

Can we have a citation from a reliable source in English, please? It strikes me as dubious, which is why I added a {{dubious}} tag. Thank you. El_C 07:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

-I suggest we remove it altogether. It's not just dubious but impossible. --Laveol ^T 12:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

--I would suggest leaving it in at least until more research as done (I see nothing wrong with using non-English sources so long as at least someone is bilingual). Anyway, there is some evidence that some cultures spontaneously achieved high literacy rates regardless of schooling and technological development. It has been argued that the Cree in North America had a literacy rate that exceeded contemporary rates in England within a generation or so of the development of Cree Syllabics (and these people were nomadic). An 80% literacy rate does seem dubiously high but is by no means impossible (if literacy is the ability write ones name and a few key words in the sand). It is certainly an interesting angle to research further. Hrimpurstala (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian time travel to secure political continuity

It is obvious that the 1st Bulgarian Empire was annexed at 1018, the second was estamblished 170 years later. So it is historically inaccurate to claim that the 2nd was the succesor of the first, or the first was the preceseccor of the 2nd. I hope this explanation is simple on the issue. Any contradicting arguments (like time travel potentiality in 11-12th century) will be interesting.

Same situtation happens with the link to History of Bulgaria (1878-1946). Why such time gaps? From 15th century to 1878?

To summarize the right sequence is:

1st Bulgarian Empire (680–1018)-Byzantine Empire (1018-1185)-2nd Bulgarian Empire (1185–1422)-Ottoman Bulgaria(1422-1878)-Modern Bulgaria (1878-today).Alexikoua (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that thing to show the successor? After all the Byzantine Empire is not a successor of the First Bulgarian Empire, nor predecessor of the Second. In terms of time yes, but as political entity the Second Empire is a successor of the First Empire and modern Bulgaria is a successor of the Second Empire. For example you can't say that nowadays Bulgaria is a successor of the Ottoman Empire by any means. --Gligan (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, but it is a breakaway state formed from Ottoman territory, just like modern Greece, Serbia, Albania, etc. Typical example: Poland after the partitions. Thus, although there is certainly a correlation between the Bulgarian empires and modern Bulgaria as the independent states of the Bulgarian nation (in other words, as expressions of Bulgarian nationhood), the intervals are very important and cannot be ignored, and these are periods when Bulgaria and the Bulgarians were under foreign rule. Modern Bulgaria is thus in no way a direct successor to the 2nd Bulgarian Empire, but rather of Ottoman Bulgaria. We cannot discard five centuries' worth of history and its impact on a people. It would be like putting Byzantium in the predecessor box of the First Hellenic Republic. Regards, Constantine ✍ 16:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, but de facto there was no such thing as Ottoman Bulgaria, no such entity existed. Modern Bulgaria is not a direct successor of the Second Empire in terms of time because obviously a period of nearly 5 centuries separates them ;-) While putting Byzantium as predecessor of Greece is more inaccurate because I think that the Byzantine Empire had a kind of evolution from spin-off of the Roman Empire, the conquerors of the Ancient Greek world to the so called "Greek Empire" which existed only in the last centuries of Byzantium. As for Poland, yes, the case is identical with Bulgaria and I see that there the Polish Kingdom is not put as predecessor of the Second Polish Republic, which is rather strange honestly speaking...

But in any case of that is meant to show succession only in terms of time there is no point to argue - in that case you are both correct. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ottoman Turks who ruined Bulgaria's economy and infrastructure, depopulated large areas and killed the nobility"

I've added "citation needed" after this part. I'd rather see some evidence that the nobility was being KILLED, and not DEPORTED to somewhere, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaceInTheSand (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The alternative name "Bulgarian Vlach Empire"

Gligan affirmed that "it is not synonymous with the term Second Bulgarian Empire, because it can only be used for the first years of the existence of a coutry which existed as a single state for over 200 years.". However we need a source for that, because in its absence, it represents only WP:OR. (SamiraJ (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

On the contrary, you need a sourse about using the name after the second half of the 13th century. You will hardly find one, because it was never used. After Kaloyan, no Bulgarian ruler is known to have used the title "Emperor of Bulgarians and Vlachs". Ivan Asen II who ruled between 1218 and 1241 (onlt 11 years after Kaloyan) is known to have used the title "Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Greeks" - here is the text in Bulgarian, see + Асен, цар на българите и гърците +. Here you can see the Vatopedi charter in which he is again titled "Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Greeks". All other Emperors with known charters are also titled that way or simply "Emperor of (all) Bulgarians". You will have to find sources which use the name Vlach-Bulgarian Empire in later periods. --Gligan (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Now, Latin sources - list of the Bulgarian dioceses in 13th and 14th centuries, it says "Bulgarian", not "Vlach-Bulgarian"; then in a letter of Pope Innocent III to Emperor Henry, see Nos vero divino fulti subsidio, Adrianopolim et maximam partem Bulgarie transeunter,..., again only Bulgaria used as the name of the country; the next page in one of the last lines you will again see only Bulgaria; there it comes a [letter of Emperor Henry] stating ...Burillus nobis institit, qui similiter inter gentem Bulgarurum,... - the successor of Kaloyan who took the regnal title of the Bulgarian people; [letter of Pope Honorius III to the Hungarian king] - you will see Azeno Bulgarie Impertore, again only Bulgaria; Pope Innocent V addressing Kaliman Asen (1241-1246) - Illustry Colomanno in Bulgaria imperanti

When the country itself was referred to, it says "Bulgaria". And these are sources from before the mid 13th century; after that I will not even search - you try to find anything about Vlach-Bulgarian Empire. And don't forget to find about 14th century too. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not about the name used by primary sources (medieval manuscripts), but about the name used by secondary sources (modern historical works). The name is not used only in relation with Kaloyan. For example here it is mentioned in a paragraph about Ivan Asen II (SamiraJ (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Ivan Asen II still ruled before the mid 13th century. My point is that even in modern sources the name is not used for the whole existence of the country. Some modern historians use Bulgarian-Vlach Empire sometimes but never about the later periods. The only name used for the whole existence is Second Bulgarian Empire/State or simply Bulgaria. And, after all, modern historians base that name in the primary sources and they also never it use after the mid 13th century and even the earlier ones often use simply Bulgaria. Therefore, the names are not synomyms and Vlach-Bulgarian Empire does not mean the same as Second Bulgarian Empire. For example, no one says that the Ottomans conquered the Vlach-Bulgarian Empire, although the country they conquered is the same country which Asen and Peter reestablished. --Gligan (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've created a Names section, where I've included the name "Romanian Bulgarian Empire". It is relevant, cause a stranger who reads a Romanian history book: [1] should know what it refers too (SamiraJ (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

Any other than Romanian sources for Romanian Bulgarian Empire? Slovakian historians could consider the Roman Empire as Slovakian Roman Empire and will be this notable for the article Roman Empire(nothing against Slovak historians, just for example)? On the same way the opinion and the way the Romanian historians transform the state's name and call it is neither notable or reliable for the aricle Second Bulgarian Empire. An medieval manuscript or wether text from the period is needed to confirm that the term Romanian Bulgarian Empire term existed, otherwise it becomes only a new created POV and that the Romanian historography use the POV in present-day doesn't matter for the article.Dinner for three (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We are talking here about modern historiography, not about contemporary medieval sources. "Second Bulgarian Empire" is a modern name too, not a name used in medieval manuscripts. I don't understand your affirmation that "the Romanian historians transform the state's name and call it is neither notable or reliable for the aricle Second Bulgarian Empire". It is a state of facts, proved by Google Books search: [2]. It is only your personal opinion that it is not notable, I think it is (SamiraJ (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern histography is not more reliable than evidences from the period. However Lucian Boia's and Romanian historography's POV differs from the modern histography's sources, so find a foreign source if you can. That a fringe group is using their term, doesn't makes it notable for the article and you should prove that such term existed in the existence of the state. Otherwise it becomes a newly invented POV which never existed before the 20-21th century and doesn't accord with the Modern histography which use Vlach-Bulgarian as alternative name. Moreover that all this didn't need explanotion and source could be removed only as not a reliable source.

"Modern histography is not more reliable than evidences from the period" - this is wrong. Wikipedia must be based on secondary, not on primary sources (see WP:SECONDARY). Is is only your own POV that this a Fringe group, and I don't like the way you are mocking the term by comparing its legitimacy with the one of "Slovakian Roman Empire". The view of Romanian historians is indeed notable here, because the Empire covered an important part of the Romanian territory and the first rulers were Vlachs (Vlach = deprecated exonym for "Romanian") (SamiraJ (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

That the secondary sources are more important doesn't change anything. The term Romanian-Bulgarian remains fringe of the Romanian history and is nowhere used in the modern historography. The Google Search you post found only Romananian authors such as Lucian Boia, Iosif Constantin Drăgan, Octavian Bârlea, Academia Republicii Socialiste România, Nicolae Gogoneață etc.. to use this and no one other than Romanian. On the other hand all the non-Romanian scholarship who use the alternative name use Vlach-Bulgarian and Bulgarian-Vlach, which makes the Romanian view a fringe. Romanian-Bulgarian is a newly created POV by the Romanian historography in the recent years and is not supported neither by secondary sources using that name or by primary sources proving that the state was really a little bit Romanian-Bulgarian. Only that the term's authors are no other than Romanians makes the term a fringe one and not of NPOV, which is against the official policy and should be removed. The Romanian authors are not reliable secondary sources and are not important for the article. Dinner for three (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ir is only your personal opinion that "the Romanian authors are not reliable secondary sources and are not important for the article.". The name is attributed, it is clearly specified that the name is used only by Romanian historians, so I don't understand the problem (SamiraJ (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

Hello, a personal opinion from me. It is not only up to Sources. Please mind the historical context. One should not look for national institutes in feudal times. Positively, there were local markets, ethnic cultures and endogamy in the medieval period, but no nationwide concepts of general education, social policies or representative sports teams as it is today. Therefore it was not Vlacho-Bulgaria, but the State of bulgars and vlachs, that was ruled over by a certain Dynasty. And as it was a monarchy, and the monarch was the earthly prince, his subordinates always tried to emulate (and eventually replace) him. This means that family and bloodline were more important than tongue and merit.

The Nomenclature paragraph in this article is just fine and sufficient in this version ID: 1030307560. Litev (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The self-name of the country is Царьство блъгарское. Many historical sources from the Second Bulgarian Empire have been preserved. None of them say anything about Vlachs. Everywhere the people are Bulgarian and the tsardom is Bulgarian. The Vlachs did not play a key role either politically or culturally. They were one of the many tribes subordinated to the Bulgarians - Alans, Kumyans and other. The country has a Bulgarian character and this cannot be questioned, except by people unfamiliar with historical sources. Kandi (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm adding here the opinion of a Russian historian, A.A. Vasiliev in his book “History of the Byzantine Empire” that might help in this discussion:

“Some elements of Bulgarian and Roumanian nationalism have become involved in this question, so that it is necessary to reconsider it with all possible scholarly detachment and disinterestedness. On the basis of reliable evidence, the conclusion is that the liberating movement of the second half of the twelfth century in the Balkans was originated and vigorously prosecuted by the Wallachians, ancestors of the Roumanians of today; it was joined by the Bulgarians, and to some extent by the Cumans from beyond the Danube. The Wallachian participation in this important event cannot be disregarded. The best contemporary Greek source, Nicetas Choniates, clearly stated that the insurrection was begun by the Vlachs (Blachi); that their leaders, Peter and Asen (Asan), belonged to the same race; that the second campaign of the Byzantine Empire during this period was waged against the Vlachs; and that after the death of Peter and Asen the Empire of the Vlachs passed to their younger brother John.

Whenever Nicetas mentioned the Bulgarians, he gave their name jointly with that of the Vlachs: Bulgarians and Vlachs. The Western cleric Ansbert, who followed the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa in his crusade (1189-1190), narrated that in the Balkans the Emperor had to fight against Greeks and Vlachs, and calls Peter or Kalopeter “Emperor of the Vlachs and of the most part of the Bulgarians” (Blacorum et maxime partis Bulgarorum dominus) or “imperator of the Vlachs and Cumans,” or simply “Emperor of the Vlachs who was called by them the Emperor of Greece” (Kalopetrus Bachorum [Blachorum] dominus itemque a suis dictus imperator Grecie). Finally, Pope Innocent III in his letters to the Bulgarian King John (Calojoannes) in 1204 addressed him as “King of Bulgarians and Vlachs” (Bulgarorum et Blacorum rex); in answering the pope, John calls himself “imperator omnium Bulgarorum et Blacorum,” but signs himself “imperator Bulgariae Calojoannes;” the archbishop of Trnovo calls himself “totius Bulgariae et Blaciae Primas.” Although the Wallachians initiated the movement of liberation, the Bulgarians without doubt took an active part in it with them, and probably contributed largely to the internal organization of the new kingdom. The Cumans also shared in the movement. The new Bulgarian kingdom was ethnologically a Wallachian-Bulgarian-Cuman state, its dynasty, if the assertion of Nicetas Choniates is accepted, being Wallachian.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morosanul (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I've just reverted a bunch of edits by User:Dinner for three:

1. The long name of the state is Second Bulgarian Empire, the short name Bulgaria is separate from that and does not need to be added to Template:Infobox former country.
2. The Principality of Bulgaria is a logical successor state, but is not the immediate successor. With an interval of nearly 500 years between them, it is inappropriate for the Principality to be highlighted in the infobox; it should instead be mentioned in the lead paragraph. The Former Country infobox is specifically for articles on the immediate predecessor and successor states. Ottoman Bulgaria is the appropriate successor here, as it describes Bulgaria within the Ottoman Empire, which is the successor state to the lands of the Second Bulgarian Empire.
3. Language templates such as {{lang-bg}} should be used wherever possible, as they have the same visual appearance, but add metadata to the HTML in the page, providing better accessibility.
4. Alphabets other than our Latin alphabet should not be italicised, as is stated in the Text formatting section of the Manual of Style.
5. We avoid using HTML escapes for Unicode characters on the Wikipedia; there are scripts such as Advisor that allow automated correction of these.
6. The Encyclopædia Britannica is provided as a source for the name Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars. This is a reliable source and can be argued against in the article if people object to it, but should not be removed willy-nilly.

— OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't knew for the script standarts, but the Principality of Bulgaria as successor should be back. That it was not immediate but logical successor is POV, it was called Bulgaria and used the same language as official. The fact that the two countries were Bulgaria is well-known among the sources and this should be back.

For Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars by Britannica, that was disclaimed in the talk by historical letters, texts, etc. It was only used during Kaloyan's reign altough even then in official letters the state was called Bulgaria or Bulgarian Empire, this name has no place in the intro beacause it was only in a period and not in the entire exsistence of the state.Dinner for three (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but I'm afraid you're wrong on the predecessor/successor stuff. Template:Infobox former country does not track the logical successor after a gap of 400 years. This isn't POV, no-one is disputing that the Principality of Bulgaria is heir to the Second Empire and that they were both known by the shortname of Bulgaria, but the gap of 400 years means that we don't track them in the infobox. That's simply how the infobox is used across Wikipedia — for immediate predecessors and successors. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've thought thant the meaning of "immediate succesor" in English is "proper heir", which was my mistake - sorry for that!Dinner for three (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I meant immediate as in immediately (Bulgarian: веднага, according to Google Translate). I agree completely that the Principality is the heir to the Second Empire, and this should be reflected in the text of both articles :o) -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Romanian-Bulgarian empire

I just deleted the "Romanian-Bulgarian" empire since the word "romanian" comes centuries later and as well is not relevant how the modern Romanian historiography perceives the name of the country, but how is called from the historians and in other official documents in that age, not in the 21th century. 212.10.94.203 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is relevant. And you are wrong about modern names. Second Bulgarian Empire was not used in official documents in that age either. 79.117.143.174 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was called only Bulgaria - "Second Bulgarian" is to separate it chronologically. Please, avoid dubious interpretations of history. The Romanian-Bulgarian proposal has only one source, which is from 2001. You have to find credible historical sources for your statement. 212.10.94.203 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

17 sources [3] (oldest from 1973) 79.117.143.174 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

All of which are from Romanians and none one of them dates back to historical sources. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalism. 212.10.94.203 (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What has nationailsm to do here? I don't understand. It is just a name. In the article it is clearly stated that the name is used exclusively in Romanian historiography. The article deals with the name used by modern historians in reference with the medieval empire. Similarly, the term Byzantine Empire does not appear in contemporary sources either (throughout its existence Byzantium was known simply as the Roman Empire; the name Byzantine Empire appeared in the 19th century).79.117.168.93 (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all the source itself is not credible and has no historical evidence for the country being called "Romanian". There were no "Romanians" at that time. Secondly, the Romanian viewpoint, being understandably biased and nationalistic, should not be here because:

• We might as well put all other view points - the Serbian, the Greek etc.
• We have already stated three alternative names of the country, that was called in some sources - Empire of Bulgarians and Vlachs, whose different variants include the Bulgarian-Vlach Empire,[8] the Bulgarian-Wallachian Empire.
• These are only Romanian interpretations of history, whom them self lack credibility and historical roots.

212.10.94.203 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don`t "buy" that the source is not credible(why is Ioan Aurel Pop not credible? per WP:IRS it is) and I think all viewpoints should be included in the article (Serbian, Greek if there are valid sources) according to their sources and the number of them. Removing it just because we don`t agree with it is invalid (WP:OR). I will reintroduce this data, and if you believe this is not a credible source(biased and nationalistic) please use the reliable source noticeboard. It clearly says that this name is used in the Romania, saying "only Romanian interpretations of history, whom them self lack credibility and historical roots." isn`t really an argument and there is nothing wrong about this. Adrian (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is an argument, because the truth is only one, not two. Hence when 99% of the modern international historians as well 99% of the historical figures in the middle ages refer the country as Bulgarian, there is no point of putting focus on the 1% of biased Romanian interpretations. It does not matter how you call the country in Romania today. Point is how was called in the Middle-Ages. 130.226.139.247 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You can`t discredit a whole group of historians just because you think one way or another - that can`t and isn`t an argument. As for focusing, I can hardly see it focusing about that one statement added in the second section at the end...Adrian (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree please use the reliable sources noticeboard. Please read WP:SOURCE - Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight. Adrian (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The denomination is also used by the European Centre of Historical Studies Venice 79.117.151.226 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the totally unsustainable paragraph concerning the survival of the Bulgarian nobility and population north of Danube after the end of the 14th century, it's complete fiction (of course, it had no quoted sources). By that time, Wallachia was well constituted as a state, and was under the rule of Mircea, covering the territory from the Iron Gates of Danube to the Danube Delta and later the Black Sea. The idea of a Bulgarian 'semi-state' within the Wallachian state is both unprecedented and a nonsense.

Vassal of Dushan

My edit was reverted, but I found further evidence of Bulgaria being a vassal of Serbia: The Cambridge Medieval History ("But for the ruler (Dushan) of so vast realm, the title of King seemed insignificant, specially as his vassal, the ruler of Bulgaria, bore the great name of Tsar."). FkpCascais (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Another source. It says: "...including (talking of Dushan Empire) Bosnia, the Herzegovina, Macedonia, and the vassal State of Bulgaria herself." FkpCascais (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read that stuff, too, but you insist on a time frame when this was clearly not the case. There is no proof (or a source suggesting) a 35-year-long vassalage. Mind you, the article on Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria is a featured one, a status which required tons of research and none of the sources there suggest he was, in fact, a vassal. Furthermore, his own actions, suggest the opposite. --Laveol ^T 01:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, you are right, I cant find the exact time frime, but I found this source that says: "From 1331 to 1365 Bulgaria was under one John Alexander, a noble of Tatar origin, whose sister became the wife of Serbias greatest ruler, Stephen Dusan; John Alxande moreover recognized Stephen as his suzerain, and from thenceforward Bulgaria was a vassal-state of Serbia." ... The sources claiming a vassal relation are mounting, and Ivan Alexander article being a featured one doesn't mean some things weren't taken into account. Also, I noticed most sources are Bulgarian, and notice how I am using only neutral sources. FkpCascais (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Mounting? What other sources are there? That 1915-book is the only one claiming such a thing. A book that claims the Fall of Tarnovo was the end of the Second Bulgarian empire. Read this article and see if this was the case. The book is a really odd read. Maybe, it's too old, but common historiography, at least modern historiography, has 1396 as the end of the Empire. It is only when Vidin, Ivan Sratsimir's capital fell, when the empire's end was spelled. I've requested access to some more scholarly literature on the matter. Once I get it, I'll check for more info on the subject. It sounds more than dubious, though. --Laveol ^T 05:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

More scholary than Cambridge? :) I am going off wiki now, but some sources can have some consideration for sure. And Bulgarian Second Empire ended just in paper in 1365, because it really ended much before, most scholars agree on that. FkpCascais (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And in reality most scholars agree that there never was a "Serbian Empire".Avidius (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Name one Avidius. FkpCascais (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais, the fact is that there was no Bulgarian vassalage because there is nothing in the primary sources that suggests such a status. It is likely that the vassalage is a 19th century idea, probably due to the lack of credible information on Bulgarian history at the time (I have even seen a map from the 19th century showing Bulgaria as part of Serbia during the rule of Stephen Dushan and I have seen that written in a book from the 1910s which has a lot of factual errors regarding Bulgarian history as a whole). The policy of Bulgaria from 1331 to 1365 was completely independent (Bulgarian and Serbia took different sides in the Byzantine civil war of 1341–47 for example), and there is not a single evidence that Bulgaria was paying any kind of tribute. Also, how do you judge that 1365 would be end of the suggested vassalage - what happened in that year? --Gligan (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologise Gligan for not answering earlier. Here are some sources claiming vassalship. I am posting here only English language sources from neutral authors and the search is difficult because of the number of results for Bulgaria and Serbia becoming vassals of the Ottomans.

• The Cambridge Medieval History Series Volumes I-V by J. B. Bury: "But for the ruler (Dushan) of so vast realm, the title of King seemed insignificant, specially as his vassal, the ruler of Bulgaria, bore the great name of Tsar."

• Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries by E. Upson: "...including (talking of Dushan Empire) Bosnia, the Herzegovina, Macedonia, and the vassal State of Bulgaria herself."

• The Balkans: A History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey by Clarendon Press: "From 1331 to 1365 Bulgaria was under one John Alexander, a noble of Tatar origin, whose sister became the wife of Serbias greatest ruler, Stephen Dusan; John Alexander moreover recognized Stephen as his suzerain, and from thenceforward Bulgaria was a vassal-state of Serbia."

• Churches Of Eastern Christendom by B. J. Kidd: "But in 1330, the Serbs... ...stretching from the Danube to the gulf of Arta, and including Bulgaria as a vassal state, 1331-1365."

• A History of the Balkan Peoples by René Ristelhueber: "Bulgarias tsar, whose sister Dushan had married, became his vassal."

It also may be possible that the participation of Bulgarian Patriarch Simeon at the coronation of Tsar Dushan was not in a sense "to help" like suggested in one article here, but as him recognizing Dushan souvereignity. FkpCascais (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, FkpCascais, for the response. We all know that constant search is the way to knowledge. However, as I said many authors, without checking carefully the sources, seem to repeat a 19th century theory that Bulgaria was vassal of Serbia, which was probably due to lack of information and was not intentional. The books in which that theory appears for the first time are full of factual errors and lack of essential information which seem to have contributed to such a conclusion. For example, one of the early book that you cite, The Balkans: A History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey from 1915, reads "one John Alexander, a noble of Tatar origin" which shows that the author know nothing about him. However, we know the family tree of Ivan Alexander, who on his mother's side was nephew of the former emperor Michael Shishman (a nephew of the emperor cannot be "one") and descendent of the Asen dynasty; furthermore, he was not of Tatar origin neither... According to the book, what we know of his rule is that he became vassal of Stefan Dushan and that seems to be all. It is also said that he died in 1365 - not only they haven't even guessed the year, but Ivan Alexander is one of the medieval Bulgarian emperors whose precise date of his demise is known - 17 February 1371.

Modern historians have access to more sources which give light to the reign of Ivan Alexander and nothing in his reign suggests that he was a vassal of Stefan Dushan, nor is such an event mentions in any contemporary sources. If one follows carefully the Bulgarian policy during his reign, he would establish that it was in no means influenced by Dushan. Ivan Alexander and Stefan Dushan were allies with no subordinate position of Ivan Alexander. For example, in Kazhdan's Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, which is a monumental research of the Byzantine world, there is nothing about a vassalage, only alliance.

Regarding the Patriarch - a country cannot proclaim a Patriarchate or Empire without a recognition of an authority. For Bulgaria in 927 the authority was the Byzantine Empire (which does not mean that it became a Bulgarian vassal); for Serbia in 1346 the authority was the Bulgarian Empire. Best regards, Gligan (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gligan. I want be making any edits or changes regarding this subject without reaching consensus here. I will add here any further relevant information that I may find out about the subject. FkpCascais (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to British English

During a requested GOCE copy-edit; I saw at first instances of American orthography, but as I worked down the article I started running into British spellings. Since the article's subject has strong links to neither country, I took the first variant, AmEng, as the dominant variant in use there. There's no note on the talk page and I'm not prepared to trawl the archive to discover the first historical variant. The requester Gligan (talk · contribs) has told me his/her preference is BrEng, to which I'll change the article when I've finished my c/e in about two days from my timestamp. Is there any reason I shouldn't do this? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Done; Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing the information regarding Second Bulgarian Empire as the sucessor of the First Bulgarian Empire

There is an anthropological distance between the ethnicities living in the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire, regardless of the preservation of "Bulgarian" ethnonym. This should be specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianisv (talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a citation request to the following claim: "A successor to the First Bulgarian Empire". However, if someone doesn't back this up soon, I will change it to "dubious" claim. Adrianisv (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Separating Bulgarian ethnic identity from Bulgarian civic identity

This page has been subjected to a number of minor changes throughout time by dubious users (Bulgarian nationalists), who removed the multiethnic emphasasis of the state, replacing all mentions of vlachs and cumans participating in battles - as described by Byzantine chronicles - with "Bulgarians". Adrianisv (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Please provide your exact proposals here for discussion and consensus and stop edit-warring. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Differentiate between Bulgarian ethnic identity and Bulgarian civic identity in the first paragraphs of the article. Mentioning of Vlachs and Cumans in battles; mentioning on the Vlach origin of Asen dynasty -- Steven Runciman. A History of the Crusades (page 13); George Finlay, A History of Greece, Cambridge University Press, 2014 Edition, p.231 Adrianisv (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

In his letters to the Pope, Kaloyan spoke of his Bulgarian origin and that he was a descendant of the Bulgarian tsars of the First Bulgarian Empire. His lead seal says that he is Tsar of the Bulgarians. In the Synod of Tsar Boril it is written that Assen and Peter liberated Bulgaria from Byzantine rule. There is nothing of Wallachian origin here. Kandi (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Source, please. I gave you sources citing Byzantine and Franks chroniclers on Vlach origin of Anastestilor Dynasty. Other sources, citing most recognized contemporary Byzantine source, Nicetas Choniates -- Dimitri Korobeinikov, A broken mirror: the Kipchak world in the thirteenth century. In the volume: The other Europe from the Middle Ages, Edited by Florin Curta, Brill 2008, p. 394; Dimitri Korobeinikov, A broken mirror: the Kipchak world in the thirteenth century; Victor Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic nomads north of the Danube Delta from the tenth to the mid-thirteenth century, 2009, ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5, 9004175369 Adrianisv (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If you don't back up your claims, I will go further with my edits. Adrianisv (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

As for you trying to force a succession between First and Second Bulgarian Empire, refer to the issue opened above, "Removing the information regarding Second Bulgarian Empire as the sucessor of the First Bulgarian Empire". I hope you understand no one will let this exaggerated statement pass. There is no connection between Turkic Bulgars and Slavic Bulgarians, other than the ethnonym. Adrianisv (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I see you are bothered by the changes I've made. If you'd like to edit something out, go ahead and refer to my changes one by one. The changes I've made consists of cited, verified information presented in the following sections of the Wikipedia page. The alternative name "Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars" and the multiethnic character of the state are documented in the Wikipedia page. Adrianisv (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

In his letters to Pope Innocent IV Kaloyan referred to emperors Simeon I, Peter I and Samuel as his predecessors, therefore claiming continuity with the First Empire. Kaloyan took the nickname Romanslayer, referring to Basil II the Bulgarianslayer. The first emperor of the Second Empire Theodore changed his name to Peter, the name of the first universally recognised emperor of the First Empire. You'd know that, if you bothered to read the article rather than enforcing nationalist rethorics. Vlach-Bulgarian Empire is not an alternative name but rather an ephimerical name sometimes used only in the first few decades of its existence of over 200 years. Gligan (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That proves nothing, except another possibility of him being a Vlach ruler (Romanslayer) that ruled over the Bulgarians. In any case, I don't see his ethnicity disputed, but the subject is avoided altogether. "Romanslayer" and "Bulgarslayer" are definetly not a valid link between First and Second Bulgarian Empire, no matter how much you force it. And I did read the article. Thanks. Vlach-Bulgarian Empire is an alternative name used in international historiography. Adrianisv (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Historical sources: 1. ″CORRESPONDENCE OF THE BULGARIANS WITH POPE INOCENTIUS III″.(translation from latin by Mikhail Voynov, Ivan Duychev) - Kaloyan's second letter to the Pope: ″In the first place, we, as a beloved son, want from our mother, the Roman Church, a royal crown and dignity according to what our ancient emperors had. As we find recorded in our books, one was Peter (Bulgarian tsar Peter I) , the other was Samuel (Bulgarian tsar Samuil), and others who preceded them in reign.″ [4], 2. ″The Book of Boril or Boril Synodic″ 13th century - official document of the Bulgarian royal court: ″To Tsar Ivan Asen Belgun, who freed the Bulgarian people from Greek slavery - his eternal memory. To Theodore, called Peter, his brother and tsar, and to his brother tsar Kaloyan, who achieved many victories over the Greeks and Francs - their eternal memory.″ [5], Lead seal of Tsar Kaloyan with which a letter from his office was attached. Inscription in Bulgarian - Kaloyan, tsar of the Bulgarians, 4. Patriarch Euthymius of Tarnovo (14th century) - "Hagiography of St. Ivan of Rila" - tells about the liberation and restoration of the Bulgarian state by the Bulgarian tsar Asen I. 5. Patriarch Euthymius of Tarnovo - "Praise for Mikhail Warrior" - tells about the victories of the Bulgarian tsar Kaloyan over the Latin knights (4 crusade). Kandi (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the source is in Bulgarian, the punctuation is definetly not okay and the text has many, unnecessary explanations in the paranthesis which alter the content of the letter and add to the Bulgarian nationalistic bias. If the letter is real and correctly translated, it doesn't change the fact Bulgarian was used as a civic identity. Again, the Anes dynasty is of Vlach origin, according to two Byzantine chronicles (one being Nicetas Choniates, the most recognized contemporary medieval source) and one Franks chronicle. I won't post the sources again, they are above. Adrianisv (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the sources are in Bulgarian. These are domestic sources from the 13th-14th centuries, from the Second Bulgarian Empire, from the royal chancellery, seals, diplomas and works of the Bulgarian writer, statesman and patriarch Euthymius. It seems that no one in Bulgaria in the 13th-14th centuries knew that he lived in the Wallachian kingdom. Kandi (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No one has mentioned anything of the Wallachian kingdom. The name "Empire of Vlachs and Bulgarians" is valid. Please, read the "Nomenclature" section. I don't see any reason for the discussion regarding the alternative name to continue. It is an alternative name used in international historiography. Adrianisv (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The alternative name is an alternative view and it is not appropriate for the leading section. Please read MOS:LEADALT. Jingiby (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Adrianisv may you explain why the name of the country as attested by historical artifacts and written in the then official state language was deleted. However, the above circumstance was confirmed by reliable secondary English sources which were also deleted. Jingiby (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting: the Romanian point of view is tolerantly and is giving equality to Bulgarians and Romanians in this medieval multiethnic state, while the Bulgarians want only their own nationalist point of view. I know many medieval chronicles considered this state often like "Wallachia", or "Zagora", sometimes as "Bulgaria". According to Bulgarians only "Bulgaria" is valid name, which mean Bulgarian History Science is still dominated by nationalistic agenda.--Antilios (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works based on modern sources, not on medieval chronicles. The prevailing consensus among international historian community differs from Romanian POV. Jingiby (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

1422 as end of the Empire.

Please provide reliable sources before pushing this fringe view here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"Russian" anachronisms

Currently the article includes phrases like "Russian principalities" and "Russians", which are applied to the medieval time period. Here is the quote from the main Rus' principalities article which is referenced [6]:"The Rus’ principalities in the fourteenth century were not ‘Russia’, although their history in this century is often subsumed into that rubric". Furthermore, it is unclear what is exactly meant by "Russian mercaneries" in the text. Shahray (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is supported by the cited source. For example, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium says: "As things were, it provided a stimulus and a model for the literature of Serbia, Rumania, and above all Russia" (p. 337). Mellk (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This note is supported by reliable source [7].

There was clearly no "Russia" in Middle ages. Shahray (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is called WP:SYNTH. I can also find a reference to Russian principalities in a completely different context, so what? Mellk (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What "different context"? "Russian principalities" is anachronistic and non-neutral (WP:NPOV), the common proper name in historiography is "Rus' principalities". The meaning of "Russian mercaneries" in medieval times is even more vague. Shahray (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the South Slavic influence, The Orthodox Christian World (2012) says: "This observation is almost as straightforward for late Byzantium and 'the second south-Slavic influence' on the Russian culture" (p. 299). But I guess you know better than the people who wrote this. Mellk (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Russian culture" is acceptable if it talks about the development of modern russian culture.

"Russian principalities" and "russian mercaneries" are certainly not, and it's not because "I know better". Shahray (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert, can you make a comment? Shahray (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We need to use sources as good as we can find and write the article in accordance. If we can find sources better than the current ones, with the correct terminology, we can update the article then. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Via WP:ONUS:"While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article".

In my opinion, "Russian principalities" do not improve the article, contradicts other sources, and more so vague "Russian mercaneries". What do you think? Shahray (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)