Re: Asen bros' (was: Yers)

Marcus,

I recognize my being very sinful on no knowing Bulgarian
historians missed such an important fact I never heard of. Ofg
course, I am responsible of everything.

I am also very sinful of not having read the old sources, so I will
correct my mistake in the future.

Generally, I am ver guilty, but I will refrain from shooting myself.

Eva


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fortuna11111" wrote:
>
> > I think it was said they were probably Kumans. I read this very
> > long ago and most of my books are in Bulgaria. What I have
> > here, Bozhidar Dimitrov, 2001, refers to the old sources on

the

> > subject, including Nikita Honiat, [...]
>
> "Nikita"?! That's bad sign since the guy was Byzantine. In

modern

> transliteration one should write "Nicetas (Niketas) Choniates".
>
> > and claims Bulgarian historians have no grounds to say they

were

> > Kumans since "the old sources say nothing on the subject."
>
> That is: on Asen brothers being Cumans. Of course he claims

that.

> They weren't.
>
> > Which probably means they also do not say they were

Wallachians.

>
> That is: you did not read the primary source but you infer

things.

>
> > So some people may laugh that I want to re-read the old

sources

> > (and not just read quotes from them or take the words of

others

> > for granted), but it is my way of 1. confronting my own

possible

> > illusions, 2. confronting the illusions of others.
>
> Then do it.
>
> > I would add from myself: There is no such thing as objective
> > history. It is clear that everyone reflects his own biases.
>
> For example, Bulgarian historians do not mention usually the
> important Vlach element in the state lead by "imperator

omnium

> Bulgarorum et Blachorum".
>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi