Re: Asen bros'

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

> Come on, Marcus

"Marius", if you don't mind.

> [...] You are now blaming the whole community of Bulgarian
> historians

No.

> [...] of having bulgarized Nicetas. This is just being too
> picky to be of any actual importance.

I interpreted it as a bad sign. As Sergei pointed out, it could
have been a misunderstanding. I agree it's not important.

>>>> 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?
>>
>> No, it's from Kalojan's own wisdom.
>
> Oh, so you mean the way Kalojan named himself? Okay, now I know
> what you are talking about.

With respect to this self-depicting formula.

> 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.

> And anyway, I suggest you check your knowledge against some people
> who are actually able to object to what you are saying.

To object to what, exactly?! That "Blachorum" means `of the Vlachs`?

> Just as it is easy for a man to beat a woman, it is easy for
> someone to appear knowledgaeble before an amateur. Btw, as an
> amateur, I would still be interested in watching the debate.

OK, if somone has objections, may (s)he feel free to post them.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi