Bulgaria in Early

[SicilianVespers]

I have recently been considering removing/renaming Bulgaria from the early campaign, and replacing them with a Vlach faction...this "new" faction might be called Tara Valahia if in Wallachia or Megale Vlachia if in Thessaly.

Basically it would represent one of the Vlach Taras, under a Voivode or Knyaz.

The Bulgarian faction in the High campaign will also be changing to Regnum Vlachorum et Bulgarorum.

I am leaning toward placing them in Wallachia since it is rebel in early, and this would allow the Byzantines can hold the balkans.

The Bulgarian faction is already a half Vlach faction, so it really wouldn't be a huge change. We woudl just have to move them above the Danube.

Opinions?

[4th Regiment]

Sounds fine, just do history research about time frame and existence and/or relevancy of Bulgaria in those eras, or we will have angry Bulgarians here soon.

PS. Have you considered removing peasant "units" as I suggested and explained earlier in order to get several free unit slots?

[SicilianVespers]

The 2nd Bulgarian Empire wasn't actually founded until 1185.

Bulgaria in early represents the a Paulician rebellion of Leka and Dobromir, so there is an historical basis. If we make a Vlach state, it will be a sort of precursor of the Asen dynasty.

It would be a mixed Vlach and Cuman faction, that could go on to found the Regnum Vlachorum et Bulgarorum.

I will remove the peasants when I need to free more slots, we are ok for now.

[sirfiggin]

I'd prefer it if you solve the problem with targoviste i.e the game crashing whenever i click it

[SicilianVespers]

I'd prefer it if you solve the problem with targoviste i.e the game crashing whenever i click it

This is hard for me to fix, because it doesn't happening in my install.

Does the log tell you anything?

[SicilianVespers]

I have been thinking about this a little more, and we can leave the Bulgarian faction as it, but I think the name should be changed reflect it was rebellion of Paulikianoi allied with the Patzinaks (their leaders (Leka & later Travlos) married Patzinak princesses).

[Kara Kolyo]

Sorry to bump this thread, but the bulgarian faction in high should stay just bulgarorum, since the vlahorum name was kept for a short period and later was replaced by rex bulgarorum et grekorum. Plus the center of Asen rebelion was south of Danube.
It's a great mod SV, can't wait for the next release

[speedyvm]

Sorry to bump this thread, but the bulgarian faction in high should stay just bulgarorum, since the vlahorum name was kept for a short period and later was replaced by rex bulgarorum et grekorum. Plus the center of Asen rebelion was south of Danube.
It's a great mod SV, can't wait for the next release

We have reasons to belive that the rebellion was started by Vlach people (some rullers of the empire had Vlach names too), probably with cuman help. It is amazing this vlacho-bulgarian union, the rullers proclaim themselves kings over bulgarians and vlachs (this was very rare in medieval ages). So the 2 people had the same rights and recognition, even if they were so different, they spoke different languages, they had different customs, different origins, but maybe the same enemies and same religion- christian orthodoxism (religion was very important in my opinion for that era). I belive there were masses of Vlachs to south of the Danube (present-day Bulgaria) too. After decline of the Second Bulgarian empire we have evidences that a part of voievods (or cneji-plural of cnyaz) from Wallachia even from north Serbia, were bulgarian (probably they rebeled or still beeing vassals/administrators of the empire), other were Vlachs, Cumans, Slavs.

[alien_t]

Is it necessary to start Asens dynasty discussion again? Both sides has their arguments about their ethnic roots. We have reasons to belive in the opposite thesis, but no mather. Kara Kolyo is right. During the Ivan Asen II reign, 33(1218 minus 1185) years after rebellion, empire was already know only as "bulgarorum et grekorum".

Also, are the ethnic roots so important when talking about medieval empires? Let we suppose that you are right. I know some Byz emperors were armenians, but the empire was always known as Roman Empire/Eastern Roman Empire, not Romano-Armenian Empire or something like that.
Of course none can reject the fact that vlachs lived(mainly north of the Danube) and played role in the SBE.

About different languages of bulgars and vlachs I'm not so sure, but this is another of topic discussion(Мирчо войвода = Mircea Voivode , charters are written on Old Church Slavonic).

All this is off-topic, because the the thread is "Bulgaria in Early" In that era(1015-1185) Bulgaria was conquered by Byzantium - fact.

[AnthoniusII]

I agree with Alien_t ...Romans even after the 1st bulgarian establishment did devide them in vlachs and bulgarians!
At the 3 major Romano-Bulgarian conflicts Romans named all their opponets Bulgarians and consider them as citizens of the empire (sons of the Emperor him self becaouse of the orthodoxy)!
Vlachs south of Dunab were too few before the seljuck and ottoman expansion in balkans that offered their services as mercs in huge numbers!
We must not forget that in dark ages and even some centuries ago greek/roman origin people still lived in a large number of cities and many more of them were settled after each romano-bulgarian conflict!
Nikephorus stablished greeks from aegean,Tzimeskes established Isaurians and Armenians and so on....
THE main fact is that Romans saw the non greek population of north east balkans as Bulgarians despite the vlach or slavic minorities...

[SicilianVespers]

The way I have them setup in early, is as the Thema Paristrion. This was each player can play as whomever they wish to.... Bulgarian, Paulician, Vlach or Pecheneg.

As the Byzantines, you can either re-establich direct control, or vassalize them.

[alien_t]

The way I have them setup in early, is as the Thema Paristrion. This was each player can play as whomever they wish to.... Bulgarian, Paulician, Vlach or Pecheneg.

As the Byzantines, you can either re-establich direct control, or vassalize them.

Fair enough Best wishes.

...Are there any contemporary, purely Bulgarian sources that speak of this title change?

Probably this info could help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballshi_inscription

[AnthoniusII]

I didn't mean to interfear the way that you would present Bulgarians in the game my friend...
Just posted some info for the mod's fans that read this thread!
Keep up your great work!

[Kara Kolyo]

@SV thanks for the clarification. There are other problems with the bulgarian faction that i hope you can look at sometime in the future
- The dark age campaign - in the year 888 the bulgarian ruler and prince were no more called Kanasubigi and kanartikin. These were prechristian titles. At the game start Bulgaria is for 20 years christian and the rullers took according titles. Boris was knyaz or as he called himself Archont, Simeon proclaimed himself king and Peter was recognized as king by the romans. The kanasubigi title is even more inappropriate for the later campaigns.
There are some other issues like names and units, but they can be fixed easily if you have time.
Good luck with the nice mod, i'll stick with other factions for now

[AnthoniusII]

@Kara Kolyo is also right!
Bulgarian rullers after their conversion in to Othodoxy received Roman titles with inferior value...
Archont is from the greek word Archontas=Noble/ruller!
An other title was the "Kaisar"(Caesar)=Tsar for the Bulgarian "King"...
You can read about the Medeival Roman Titles here...

We must not forget that even when a Bulgarian kingdom was defacto indipentand Romans concidered Bulgarians citizens of the Empire and that was the reason of the act of the blindness of the bulgar soldiers by Basill II!
Blindness was the punishment for treason NOT for invasion!

[speedyvm]

alien_t, let's check some text from wikipedia links that you provide them:

The main source on the restoration of the Second Bulgarian Empire is the Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates. Choniates refers to the people of Peter and Ivan Asen as "the barbarians around Mount Haimos, who were earlier called Mysoi, and are now called Blachoi" (Choniates, 482 [p. 368 van Dieten]). 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 occasion called "Mysians", "Vlachs" or two different but conjoined peoples, "the people [génos] of the Bulgarians and Vlachs" (Choniates, 485 [p. 371 van Dieten]). The contemporary German (Austrian) chronicler Ansbert mentions "the Vlach Kalopetrus and his brother Assanius" (33), and calls Peter Blacorum et maxime partis Bulgarorum in hortis Tracie dominus, "ruler of the Vlachs and the greatest part of the Bulgarians in the gardens of Thrace" (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.

A detail in the chronicles of Nicetas Choniates tell us that Asen spoke Vlach language: a Greek priest was kidnapped by Vlachs of the Haimos Mountains and implored Asen to let him go speaking in the language of the Vlachs. In a corespondence, of 1199, the Pope talks about the "Roman descent" of Kaloyan, thing which is also reminded in Kaloyan's response. The meaning of this also has been debated: it is unclear whether the Pope referred to the Romanic origins of the Vlachs or to the Eastern Roman Empire.

The name of the dynasty comes from one of the brothers, namely Asen I. The etymology is most likely of Cuman Turkic origin, derived from "esen" which meant "safe, sound, healthy" and the Belgun nickname seems to be derived from Turkic "bilgün", which meant "wise". This could be explained by the fact that in other places, early Romanians used names of Cuman origin, for example a diploma of 1383 in Sibiu had a list of names of Romanians, which included among names of Romanian and Slavic origin, a few names of Cuman origin. Also, the most important dynasty of Wallachia had a Cuman name (Basarab dynasty)

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.

Vlachs lived in Moesia or Thrace named by latins (present-day Bulgaria) in more numbers that you think, they didn't have political rights, bulgarians and byzantins were the rullers and the vlachs were let's say "servants" with no proper rights, slavic population was in the same situation I belive.
With this rebellion leaded by the 2 brothers, vlachs are beeing recognized, of course later, when the empire expended more in the south, a large greek population was included between borders, it is normal that Ivan Asen II or Ioan Asan II to proclaim himself emperor over bulgarian and greeks, I don't know why he omited Vlachs.
Anyway, the conclusion - from your calculation, alien_t, we have more then 33 years of Regnum Vlachorum et Bulgarorum, this means more like 66 turns in SV mod. In fact we are speaking of the same empire here, even after the title change, we still have the same dynasty, we have have the same empire, but with expended borders in South and East.
What I find so interesting at this empire is his multi-ethnic components which are reconized and united with succes under one banner, that's why is so special! NOT the same with politics and goal of Byzantines, which were trying to create a homogeneos "medieval roman" population with much greek influence in all empire. We can compare this with other empires too, the list would be huge, many examples woudl fallow Byzantine Empire.

About different languages of bulgars and vlachs I'm not so sure, but this is another of topic discussion(Мирчо войвода = Mircea Voivode , charters are written on Old Church Slavonic).

Hey, using slavonic letters doesn't mean that they were speaking the same language, they have different words and meanings. The usage of old slavonic alphabet is just the result of slavic influence over this type of 2 cultural things- writing and reading.


SV, you did well by making those changes, I like them and first of all they are correct. +rep

[SicilianVespers]

@Kara Kolyo & AnthoniusII

This is where my personal biases come into play. You probably know I am aware of the Byzantines refering to the Bulgarian (and most other) rulers as Archontes. My problem with this, and again this is a more hard headed thinking on my part, Why would a Sublime Khan down grade himself to a mere Archon, simply because he converted to Christianity?

I know My pride wouldn't allow me to do that?

Are there any contemporary, purely Bulgarian sources that speak of this title change?

Do the contemporary Bulgarian source actually refer to the rulers as Knyaz? Personally I think Knyaz and Kanas are basically the same, but that is another matter.

[EDIT]

If we switch to Knyaz, what would the prince's title be?

[Kara Kolyo]

Besides the Balshi inscription, there are bulgarian sources from the time of his son Simeon and later, who call him knyaz and later Tsar. Obviously the bulgarians weren't happy with the downgrading of the title and Simeon did his best to receive the title Tsar. The title was recognized to his son Peter.
Probably for the game you can keep the Kanasubigi title for the dark age, but for the high era it should be changed to Tsar.
I have a question - will it be possible for the bulgarian king to revert back to paganism? The faction starts with Rasate as heir and if his attempt was successful, can they revert to the old ways?

[SicilianVespers]

Besides the Balshi inscription, there are bulgarian sources from the time of his son Simeon and later, who call him knyaz and later Tsar. Obviously the bulgarians weren't happy with the downgrading of the title and Simeon did his best to receive the title Tsar. The title was recognized to his son Peter.
Probably for the game you can keep the Kanasubigi title for the dark age, but for the high era it should be changed to Tsar.

This is how it is setup right now. Kanasubigi is the darkage title, and Tsar is the high title.

I have a question - will it be possible for the bulgarian king to revert back to paganism? The faction starts with Rasate as heir and if his attempt was successful, can they revert to the old ways?

Right now it is not possible to switch back, but this would be an interesting feature.