Medieval Maps of Southeastern Europe

[clandestino]

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.e...__MLT.pdf.html

I hope you know Latin very well, otherwise it would be useless to you.

I wish i know this two i am surching in the net but still can't finde

That would be quite unusual for him to achieve, he ruled for a short time and most of the time was involved in war against Byzantium and latter against Serbia, I doubt he found time to attack Hungary and even managed to capture Belgrade.

[phoenix[illusion]]

ok nike, sorry, you've probably find yourself offended, so as other bulgars, but there are some things that just doesn't fit to me.
first known slavs on bulgarian land came in 6th century. it seems to me that bulgars were not slavs, but turco-mongolian horde, they acted like horde, and way of their warfare was typical mongolian (the whay even you bulgarians represent). that's why i said they just raided some parts north of danube, cause there was no state construction, it was just like any other turko-mongolian tribe, conquering large land, and pillaging, but not making any political structure, and after that falling. it seems to me that today's bulgarians just took name from them, cause 7 slavic tribes accepted leadership of them, and over their land. same as romanians and their name today, which has got from romans. also bulgars had different language in that time (i'm talking about early history of bulgaria) and that language was more like Chuvash, which was in fact turic language. When they came to balkan, their language was changed by 7 slavic tribes. And about that persian name, it just fits in this, cause Timurid dynasty was original turic-mongolian dynasty, but had persified society (persianade). not just that, seems like that bulgars had persian name, and later slavic, which just fits in my theory, cause they started to get slavic names when they came to balkan peninsula. firsty it was persian origin, and through century more, they became slav, cause of the dominance of 7 slavic tribes that accepted bulgars' leadership. you asked me what customs. firstly, way of the warfare, which was not slavic, but more like mongolian, secondly, titles and names, but in it it can be doubtable, as you've said there is no evidence of khan, and thirdly, way they dressed, it was mongolian like. this picture should represent bulgars attacking byzantines right? they look turco-mongolic to me, not only their dresses, but their faces

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

alos this is how you represent Khan Krum

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

PS. and you say macedonian literature. every foreign historians talk about bulgars like turco-mongols. even in encyclopedia britannica from 1911, when macedona didn't exist as country. not to talk about ian heath...

[Bagatyr]

Каква е била сѫдбата на северо-западнитѣ български земи —Поморавието съ Нишъ, Браничевската и Бѣлградската области, — следъ като въ 1194 год. царь Асѣнь I сполучилъ да освободи и присъедини къмъ държавата гр. Срѣдецъ и областьта му: дали византийската власть и следъ това се е задържала тамъ, или тия области сѫ били присъединени къмъ свободна България, засега нищо не се знае; известно е само, че тогавашниятъ маджарски краль Емерихъ (1196—1204), следъ като закрепилъ влиянието си въ Сърбия чрезъ свалянето на великия жупанъ Стефана Първовѣнчани (1196—1228) и издигането на великожупанския престолъ брата му Вълкана като свой васалъ, нахлулъ въ казанитѣ български земи и въ съюзъ съ сърбитѣ, докато царь Калоянъ билъ заетъ съ работитѣ въ Тракия и Македония, презъ 1202 год. успѣлъ да окупира Браничево и Бѣлградъ, а на сърбитѣ предоставилъ Нишъ. Оттогава Емерихъ притурилъ въ кралската си титла и rex Bulgariae. Това самоволно разпореждане на Емериха съ българ-


150

скитѣ земи не е могло да не обърне вниманието на царь Калояна, който не се забавилъ да се противопостави на маджарския краль и да тури край на неговитѣ аспирации къмъ Балканския полуостровъ. Щомъ сключилъ миръ съ Византия, още въ началото на 1203 год. той, ползувайки се отъ междуособицата между Емериха и брата му Андрея, съ голѣма и силна войска отъ българи и кумани навлѣзълъ въ тия области и въ кѫсо време принудилъ сърбитѣ да напуснатъ Нишъ, а следъ нѣколко сблъсквания нейде по р. Морава съ Емериха [1] той сполучилъ да изгони и маджаритѣ отъ Браничево и Бѣлградъ, защото веднага следъ това тамъ сѫ били поставени български епископи [2]. Отъ тия успѣхи на българския царь краль Емерихъ, който не гледалъ съ добро око на засилваща се България и не искалъ дори да признае Калояна за царь, билъ крайно недоволенъ, защото тѣ донесли връщането на Стефана Първовѣнчани отново на великожупанския престолъ и унищожението на маджарското влияние въ Сърбия, отношенията съ която си останали нормални и мирни презъ царуването на Калояна. Оттогава Емерихъ виждалъ въ Калояна най-голѣмия си врагъ, и се почнали голѣми спорове между двамата, отъ които, както ще видимъ по-нататъкъ, победитель излѣзълъ Калоянъ, благодарение на това, че последниятъ положително се отзовалъ на предложението на папа Инокентия III (1198—1216) да мине въ лоното на римската църква, което той използувалъ за признанието и консолидирането на своята държава

You furget this and one more think ,Vasil Zlatarski is a bulgarian historyan that live in the end of 19 century and you know that in this time most of the history documents we have now wheren't avilible back then and the balckan histograpfy was in its child face

[clandestino]

It's published in 1940. and if I'm correct Zlatarski is still regarded as one of the authorities on medieval Bulgarian history and his work is often referenced in modern works.
Also in the beginning of the passage Zlatarski confirms that it's unknown did John Asen controlled Nis, Branicevo and Belgrade or they remained in Byzantine hands after he conquered Sredec in 1194.

[NikeBG]

Nike what about the theory of professor Plamen Pavlov about Michaile Shishman and that he conquering Belgrad from the Hungaryans?
What is your opinion ?

I have none, since I don't remember his arguments.

Could you give me link ?

I wish i know this two i am surching in the net but still can't finde

Seriously, *you* haven't checked BG-Science?

and if I'm correct Zlatarski is still regarded as one of the authorities on medieval Bulgarian history and his work is often referenced in modern works.

He is considered an authority, but mostly of the past. His role in modern researches is diminishing greatly (be it because of political trends or just because he's getting quite quite outdated).

@phoenix, will read and answer you in an edit, unless I have to leave earlier, in which case - tomorrow night.

first known slavs on bulgarian land came in 6th century. it seems to me that bulgars were not slavs, but turco-mongolian horde, they acted like horde

Well, here's your first mistake - they didn't act like a horde. Even the Byzantines don't describe them as a horde, but as a state, a continuation of the Old Great Bulgaria (the name the Byzantines gave it).

and way of their warfare was typical mongolian (the whay even you bulgarians represent).

And what is that "typical mongolian" style of warfare? One that is different from the other steppe types of warfare, like the Scythian type, or the Sarmatian type, or the Avar type etc. Especially considering the location and importance of the Mongols at that time.

that's why i said they just raided some parts north of danube, cause there was no state construction, it was just like any other turko-mongolian tribe, conquering large land, and pillaging, but not making any political structure, and after that falling.

If that's what the Bulgars did, then you can say the same about pretty much any other ancient and medieval state in the world. Except that the monumental works that the Bulgars did in Transdanubia (see the Novakova Brazda f.e.) can be compared only with rare cases like the Romans or the Chinese.

it seems to me that today's bulgarians just took name from them, cause 7 slavic tribes accepted leadership of them, and over their land.

Eight tribes, eventually - the Severi are mostly considered to be Slavs as well. Otherwise - yes, that was the old thesis from the communist times - that the Bulgars were a small insignificant horde of wild uncivilized barbarians, who conquered the Slavs, but melted in the great and supremely civilized Slavic sea, leaving only their name as a trace. Which, as I've said before, is completely against the results of archaeology, anthropology and modern history.

also bulgars had different language in that time (i'm talking about early history of bulgaria) and that language was more like Chuvash, which was in fact turic language.

The connection between the old Bulgar language and the modern Chuvash language is built entirely a priori, in a typical Pan-Turkicist (commie) way. It was taken a priori that the Bulgars were Turkic and since the Chuvashes now live in a part, which was at some time part of Volga Bulgaria, then the Chuvash language is a priori taken as the only remainder of some Turkic-Bulgar language, which is all alone in the so-called "Western group of Turkic languages". No matter that linguistic analysis of the Chuvash languages shows it's originally Finno-Ougric and the Turkic overlay is from more recent times (around the Mongol invasion or so).

When they came to balkan, their language was changed by 7 slavic tribes.

I've noted once or twice before that there is a thesis by Prof. Rasho Rashev (one of our best modern archaeologists) that they might have been partially Slavicized already in Ukraine (they certainly had a mixing with some Slavs there and their migration includes some Slavic artefacts as well). But that's just a thesis for now...

And about that persian name, it just fits in this, cause Timurid dynasty was original turic-mongolian dynasty, but had persified society (persianade). not just that, seems like that bulgars had persian name, and later slavic, which just fits in my theory, cause they started to get slavic names when they came to balkan peninsula.

As far as I know, your name is practically the same as mine - Nikola/Nikolay. Yet, that's a Greek name. Actually, most of our most popular names are Greek or Jewish (Christian) ones. And that's logical, considering we've been Christians since more than a thousand years. On the other hand, I'm interested if you can find any Iranic names among the Gokturks. I'm guessing that you'll find them as much as you'll find some of the most important Turkic titles like jabgu or bey among the Bulgars (we already talked about khan).

you asked me what customs. firstly, way of the warfare, which was not slavic, but more like mongolian

Why should it be Slavic when the Bulgars were more than likely not Slavs?
And I already asked you what "mongolian warfare" means, as opposed to steppe warfare, practiced by numerous West-Iranic tribes.

secondly, titles and names, but in it it can be doubtable, as you've said there is no evidence of khan,

Yes, there's no evidence of khan and a whole number of other core Turkic titles. More than half of the names are also Iranic and a big part of the rest are arguable (sometimes classified as Turkic due to commie-times Pan-Turkism).

and thirdly, way they dressed, it was mongolian like.

I'm getting the feeling that you think that the only people in the steppes were the Mongols. While in fact they were quite a minority, especially in the times of the Bulgars. And if the steppe culture should be associated with a certain ethnos for its origin (which it shouldn't and isn't by researchers of the Pax Nomadica), it would be the Scythians, not the Mongols.

they look turco-mongolic to me, not only their dresses, but their faces

How funny, considering all pictorial evidences from the medieval Byzantine manuscripts show us the Bulgars as more than clearly Europeid. Which is logical, considering the results of the anthropological researches of the Bulgar graves, which I've posted before (which claims that the Bulgars were clearly Europeid with minimal Mongoloid admixtures, more or less on the scale of modern Europeans).

PS. and you say macedonian literature. every foreign historians talk about bulgars like turco-mongols. even in encyclopedia britannica from 1911, when macedona didn't exist as country. not to talk about ian heath...

Before WW2, the Turkic theory was just one of the many (and any "Mongol" element in it would have been due to utter incompetence, unless they meant "Mongoloid", which is a whole different thing), rivalling other theories, such as the Hunnic, Finnish, Finno-Ougrian, Slavic and autochtonic ones. It was only after WW2 that the Turkic theory became an absolute dogma, thanks to the kindly assistance of the Comintern and its well-known dictature over science. And considering the communists were the main (if not the only) researchers in this field, I wouldn't be surprised if Western non-specialists on the matter would repeat that the Cyrillic is a Russian-invented alphabet (Russians claim so even today, btw), that the Bogomils were the first propagators of the communism and/or the Renaissance or that Ivailo led the first anti-feudal rebellion in the world (unless, of course, those ideas somehow impede the Western claims in these respective matters).
The Iranic theory, on the other hand, while it appeared in the commie times as a sidenote (well, it appeared before that, but the first great breakthrough was in commie times, by Beshevliev's research on the Bulgar names), grew exponentially in modern times. And while it's also a product of political/economical influences, I find its arguments to be considerably better (though I'm not overruling the Turkic theory either - I'm supporting our best scholars in the belief that the Bulgars were an Iranic-Turkic mix, with an Iranic basis and consequent Turkic admixtures (and, respectively, consequent Slavic and other admixtures that formed the Bulgarians)).

[clandestino]

He is considered an authority, but mostly of the past. His role in modern researches is diminishing greatly (be it because of political trends or just because he's getting quite quite outdated).

Probably, but to get on point, did Ivan Asen I conquered Belgrade in any occasion? It seems that Zlatarski didn't have information on that.

[phoenix[illusion]]

ahhh, i will never go on discussing with anybody, i just waste my time, and even get into fight with someone

diem perdidi, done nothing for mod

[NikeBG]

Probably, but to get on point, did Ivan Asen I conquered Belgrade in any occasion? It seems that Zlatarski didn't have information on that.

As I said, I don't know. As far as I remember, he lost it, not the opposite.

ahhh, i will never go on discussing with anybody, i just waste my time, and even get into fight with someone

It's not a fight if no fists have came to use.

diem perdidi, done nothing for mod

Now that's a bad thing indeed and should be corrected as soon as nature allows.

[clandestino]

As I said, I don't know. As far as I remember, he lost it, not the opposite.

I think Kaloyan lost it, not Ivan Asen I, as I pointed before Belgrade was probably still Byzantine in 1198 while Ivan Asen died in 1196, maybe he briefly held it before. Anyway never mind, it's not important, clearly it switched hands often in this period.
But I have other question, I saw quite a lot of maps representing SBE controlling huge areas of Wallachia and Moldavia, is there any concrete source of Bulgarian control over this areas or it's simply projecting of the title of Bulgarian rulers ( they called themselves emperors of Bulgars and Vlachs ) to this lands?

[phoenix[illusion]]

when i say mongolian i don't think on mongols, i think on steppe culture like you've said, and steppe warfare, horse archery, composite bows.
i just named it that way, nothing more

ahh, i really don't wanna discuss some more. maybe one time, but not this time
it's not like i don't put bulgarians as slavs, actually i think they are, but im in doubt of bulgars. in one way, you're right, but in other... anyways, i never read much of bulgars, so, one day, when i study more about serbs, bosnians and croats
anyways, feel free to comment on thread with composite bows, wanna hear your opinion

[Hrobatos]

for debating no better place than VV, you learn a lot there, whatever the outcome

[Bagatyr]

It's published in 1940. and if I'm correct Zlatarski is still regarded as one of the authorities on medieval Bulgarian history and his work is often referenced in modern works

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasil_Zlatarski

Seriously, *you* haven't checked BG-Science?

No in the forum I was search info only about XIV-XV period

first known slavs on bulgarian land came in 6th century.

Bulgars have been settling in the Balckans since emperor Zeno as his allies .

it seems to me that bulgars were not slavs, but turco-mongolian horde

If you say that a turco-mongolian horde can bild palaces ,cites,and forttreses from stone ,making Administration and laws that are advanced as those of The Eastern Roman empire,calling there rulers archonts,
having only 10 WORDS THAT ARE POINTED BY SIENTISTS AS POSIBLE TUKIC ORIGEN AND THEN AGAINE THEY MAY BE REEDED AS IRANIAN TWO so take out of your minde the idea made by the Ygoslavian(Serbian)(no bad filings)and Soviet Union propaganda mashine that Bulgars are some mainorety of dirty nomads with mongolian blood that take slavic wimen in there bed and give to the outnumbering slavs there name .Why Byzantines and Ottomans don't do the same to bulgarians they are evan stronger and with bigger population then bulgarians ?

they acted like horde, and way of their warfare was typical mongolian (the whay even you bulgarians represent

In the time of the Great Movemend V-IX century all peoples where acting like a horde(exeption is Roman Empire and Persian Sasinids) i can give you 1000 exampulse .If whe accept your position so the most of the world are mongolians

same as romanians and their name today

So you say that the name Bulgaria is created in 19 century .Because the name of the country that you gave as exampul made the same think.

also bulgars had different language in that time (i'm talking about early history of bulgaria) and that language was more like Chuvash

And how do you know

[phoenix[illusion]]

you're silly bagatyr. at least Nike has good explanations, while you're childish, like these:

Why Byzantines and Ottomans don't do the same to bulgarians they are evan stronger and with bigger population then bulgarians ?

it was time of rising and falling of civilizations and peoples. in that time people merged with each other, taken each other culture etc. in fact, they did, byzantines influenced on culture and religion, and today there are 1million muslim bulgars.

In the time of the Great Movemend V-IX century all peoples where acting like a horde(exeption is Roman Empire and Persian Sasinids) i can give you 1000 exampulse .If whe accept your position so the most of the world are mongolians

i'm talking about mongolian type hordes, steppe culture type, fast moving, which were different than slavic, germanic, celtic etc.

So you say that the name Bulgaria is created in 19 century .Because the name of the country that you gave as exampul made the same think.

why can't it happen before? i did not talked about 19th century...

And how do you know

scripts...

[Hrobatos]

you shouldnt use word mongolic, it links the sujects ( here Bulgarians) with Mongols while there is nothing to prove connection, use steppic instead

[Bagatyr]

you're silly bagatyr. at least Nike has good explanations, while you're childish, like these

yep i don't have a very well traine dispute tang but as i say in my priveus posts you can ask Nike to explain to you he will tell you most of the thinks i say but in his style.

it was time of rising and falling of civilizations and peoples. in that time people merged with each other, taken each other culture etc. in fact, they did, byzantines influenced on culture and religion, and today there are 1million muslim bulgars

There maybe influence but still bulgarians don't call them romans ,bulgarians don't call them self turks evan tholse who are muslims .And what is rong with the explanation to make the slavic tribes became bulgarians the only way is to unaited with equal in number or evan bigger race

i'm talking about mongolian type hordes, steppe culture type, fast moving

I don't see why not to an indoeuropean have such an army there isn't evydence that bulgarian people live like nomads the author discripe only the army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procopius Read the work of Procopius he shows a picture of the bulgars very difrent from what you imagine about them.

why can't it happen before? i did not talked about 19th century

I don't want to discus this because it is another them and if rumanians read this they will start discusing it two and we won't see the end

scripts...

witch are those ?and do you read what i posted about there langueg ? around 10 words that are debeitable!

[Hrobatos]

bulgarians don't call them self turks evan tholse who are muslims

I heard this is changing

[Bagatyr]

I heard this is changing

In some distand vilieges in the mounties of Rodope where a muslim bulgarians(pomaks) live the turkish propaganda is very strong and the children are taking in Turky to study but this in some places that are away from the control of the state

[Bagatyr]

alos this is how you represent Khan Krum

There are over 100 pictures of Krum and all are difrent ,i don't see what is the turkic or mongolian in it and it is a artistick vue noting more

[NikeBG]

I think Kaloyan lost it, not Ivan Asen I, as I pointed before Belgrade was probably still Byzantine in 1198 while Ivan Asen died in 1196, maybe he briefly held it before. Anyway never mind, it's not important, clearly it switched hands often in this period.

Kaloyan lost it in 1202 (after acquiring it somewhen after 1198) and retook it in 1203. Then Boril lost it in the early 1210s (not sure, 1213, I think), Ioan Asen II retook it through the marriage agreement from 1218 (the marriage itself and thus the acceptance of the dowry was in 1221, I think). Not sure when it was finally lost - 1235 (Ioan Asen's time) or the 1240s.

But I have other question, I saw quite a lot of maps representing SBE controlling huge areas of Wallachia and Moldavia, is there any concrete source of Bulgarian control over this areas or it's simply projecting of the title of Bulgarian rulers ( they called themselves emperors of Bulgars and Vlachs ) to this lands?

For Kaloyan's time - it's probably based more upon several notes about Petar and Asen earlier and about Kaloyan specifically that they/he got related to the Cumans there, drew them to himself and started commanding over them. For me personally, that's rather far-fetched and that's why in my research for one mod set in those times, the Bulgarian holdings to the north of the Danube will be rather minimal (only Kralevo/Craiova and a few double-fortresses along the Danube).
I don't know if these map-makers know something else for certain, which I don't, but in most cases I've seen, those lands are shown as "vassal" or most usually as "dependent", so I'm guessing it's based on what I said above.

when i say mongolian i don't think on mongols, i think on steppe culture like you've said, and steppe warfare, horse archery, composite bows.
i just named it that way, nothing more

That's enough, not only because it's incorrect, but also because that naming has and is often used as an offense against us by some people from former Yugoslavia. Thus, your use of that naming could be interpreted as a hint that you're under the influence of such types of "speech" (not saying that you are or aren't).

anyways, feel free to comment on thread with composite bows, wanna hear your opinion

Haven't had the time to check it, hope I'll be able to do so tomorrow/later today.

there isn't evydence that bulgarian people live like nomads

There is - written sources and archaeology. Well, a semi-nomadic lifestyle, at least. The clearest and most popular example is the quote from Zacharias the Rhetor that to the north of the Caucasus, only the Bulgars and Alans live in cities, while the Bulgars are again mentioned among the people living in tents as well.

In some distand vilieges in the mounties of Rodope where a muslim bulgarians(pomaks) live the turkish propaganda is very strong and the children are taking in Turky to study but this in some places that are away from the control of the state

Everywhere is "away from the control of the state".

There are over 100 pictures of Krum and all are difrent ,i don't see what is the turkic or mongolian in it and it is a artistick vue noting more

You should be glad phoenix doesn't have the book of Alexander (Make)Donski "Etnogenezkata razlika pomegu bugarite i makedoncite" (I have it and there's only one sillier book that I've ever read (an autochtonist book by Gantscho Tzenoff)). It's funny how the reconstruction of chargubilia Mostic (the clearest Mongoloid skull ever found here) is shown as a prime example on the book's cover (and compared with a statue of Alexander the Great), despite the statistical data of all the respective researches.

[alien_t]

That's enough, not only because it's incorrect, but also because that naming has and is often used as an offense against us by some people from former Yugoslavia. Thus, your use of that naming could be interpreted as a hint that you're under the influence of such types of "speech" (not saying that you are or aren't).

I'm not amazed. The propaganda was very strong since the commie's times(and probably earlier).

...used propaganda. Their main concern was to prevent the Slavic-speaking Macedonians from acquiring Bulgarian identity through concentrating on the myth of the ancient origins of the Macedonians and simultaneously by the classification of Bulgarians as Tatars and not as Slavs.

source

As I said before in the "Bulgarian People" thread bulgarians=mongols/tatars was used for political purposes.