Re: Asen bros' (was: Yers)

> "Nikita"?! That's bad sign since the guy was Byzantine. In

modern

> transliteration one should write "Nicetas (Niketas) Choniates".

And just to clarify on this. It is a typical thing that names appear
differently in different languages (which sometimes causes
problems in recognizing the same name in say Gruzija and
Georgia). I translated the name phonetically from Bulgarian, of
course, no mystery at all. I hope I don't get convicted. I did not
feel the need to look for its Latin spelling. I thought it was
anyway clear which historian I mean.

>
> > 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.

No, I now realize the quote is here taken out of context, so that's
why you got it this way. Dimitrov claims the old sources say
nothing specific on the origin of the brothers *in general*, not on
their being Cuman (you forgot to bite me for the K).

>
> > Which probably means they also do not say they were

Wallachians.

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

things.

No, I just read a quote from the primary source. This is what I
have at my disposal. I will check the primary source as well, of
course. But not today. For many people it is obviously hard to
understand that their words of disagreement on a subject or
their visions of the facts, which may sound unfamiliar to me, are
appreciated even when offered with the wrong tone.

> For example, Bulgarian historians do not mention usually the
> important Vlach element in the state lead by "imperator

omnium

> Bulgarorum et Blachorum".

The first time I hear this. Is this also from Honiat/Choniates?

Eva