Re: Kalojan

> 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.

Eva