In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi wrote:
>>> But I don't think it gets interpreted this way by Bulgarian
>>> historians.
>>
>> This is to be interpreted as `emperor of all Bulgarians and
>> Vlachs` since the translation from Latin should not be a
>> problem for anyone on this list.
>
> I don't think anyone speaks about Kalojan being Vlakh or
> anything of the kind, because he named himeself emperor of
> Bulgarians and Vlakhs (oh, and thanks for the translation).
Of course not. This part was not aimed to "prove" that Kalojan
was Vlach. You forgot the starting reply of this collateral
discussion: "For example, Bulgarian historians do not mention
usually the important Vlach element in the state lead by "imperator
omnium Bulgarorum et Blachorum"." (that's what I wrote). That is:
in Kalojan's state, Vlachs were an important constitutive element.
Kalojan's own words in official documents prove that.
I guessed you didn't get my point correctly, that's why I answered
to your question:
"Oh, so you mean the way Kalojan named himself? Okay, now I know
what you are talking about."
... by precising that you know what I am talking about only...
"With respect to this self-depicting formula."
I hope now you really know what I was talking about.
Cheers,
Marius Iacomi