Re: Kalojan

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fortuna11111" wrote:

>> 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 had definitely read this way of naming himself. Which means it
> was mentioned - and I remember it, although it was so long ago.

Having it mentioned as denomination doesn't imply anything about
mentioning (by historians) the significant Vlach element in his
state. In fact, they usually don't.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi