Isaac Angelos begins his reign by defeating the Normans and making as many alliances as he can to secure his position. Unfortunately he rejects an offer from two Vlach Chieftains Peter and Asen. They turn on the Romans and found the Second Bulgarian Empire north of the Haemus Mountains.
Period: 1185-87
Pic: Isaac II Angelos (Miniature portrait from a 15th-century codex containing a copy of the Extracts of the History by Joannes Zonaras)
Stream: The Second Bulgarian Empire
Download: The Second Bulgarian Empire
RSS Feed: The History of Byzantium
If you want to send in feedback to the podcast:
– Either comment on this post.
– Or on the facebook page.
– Leave a review on Itunes.
The History of Byzantium 
It is important to note that the term Vlach simply meant shepherd. In the Greek-language sources the term was likely deployed as a term of derision. Such sources should be treated with caution, as they continued the tradition of using derogatory, classicizing monikers for enemies, such as Scythian, Vlach, etc., particularly the more troublesome ones. The “ethnic” origin the Peter and Asen is unknown, so we cannot definitively say that the brothers were Wallachian, Cuman, Greek, etc. Peter and Asen refer to themselves as Bulgarian Tsars, so we should likewise refer to them as Bulgarian.
When documents from the Second Bulgarian Empire appear, the language is Bulgarian (Slavic) and they define themselves as Bulgarian (See John Fine’s The Late Medieval Balkans, 1987). Importantly, the Bulgarian Church was quickly reconstituted after the restoration, which suggests explicit institutional, cultural, and linguistic continuity between the First and Second Empires.
As a tip, I think it would be helpful to your listeners to post an exhaustive list of the sources you consulted in creating each episode. That way listeners can see the sources and come to their own conclusions.
Cheers!
Hello there Jos, I very much disagree with the statement. Here is why.
The term “Vlach” in Greek “Βλάχοι” is very well documented as a separate ethnic identity for a group of people that has been used particularly for Romance speaking people e.g Romanian’s and Italian’s. It is very true that by very late 14th century the term Vlach is used specifically for Shepherds of no matter ethnic background. But this is not the case in the 13th century and early 14th century. Vlach was not used for any other population outside a Romance one or Gallic one (e.g Wlesh), so the theory behind the idea that Vlach was a classicizing moniker is very much out the blue. Many sources such Niketas Choniates, Georgios Akropolites, Philippe Mouskes, Geoffroi de Villehardouin and Robert de Clari (amongst other’s) make the ethnic identity of the brother’s very clear in the writings, and they use exclusively most of the time ethnical name’s for the Empire’s of that time such as: Holy Roman Empire=Germany, Eastern Roman Empire=Greek Empire and Bulgarian Empire=Vlachian Empire.
As far as we are concerned, the title of “Bulgarian Tsar”, “Bulgarian Empire” (etc.) were at the same level as “Holy Roman Emperor” and “Holy Roman Empire”, they were: “translatio imperii”, a Medieval term in Latin meaning “transfer of rule” which many Emperor’s such as the German one’s used to claim succession from very old Empire’s, in this case Vlachian Empire claimed that of the Old Bulgarian Empire. This proved in the letter’s of Ioannitsa Kaloyan (nicknamed the “Vlach” by Philippe Mouskes, Geoffroi de Villehardouin, Robert de Clari and Niketas Choniates), in his letter’s to Pope Innocent IIIrd where he very much make’s it clear a “translatio imperii” that of the Old Bulgarian Empire and tsar’s.
Now the language was indeed Old Slavonic, but you called it Bulgarian which contradicts your own point above that, where you said we should call the Emperor’s the way the called themselves. The term “Old Bulgarian” for the Slavonic language is a modern concept originating around the 19th century, not something that has existed before that. That idea comes from a linguist who saw how the closest language to have evolved from Old Slavonic is Bulgarian (there’s arguments that other language are even closer, e.g Slovakian), and he called the Slavonic, “Old Bulgarian” and this trend have remained in use ever since, but that doesn’t make it right. Now, it is very important to mention that your point on the language doesn’t really change anything, as Old Slavonic remained in use in the Romanian Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia until the 17th century (in the Church it remained until 19th c.). Another interesting adoption in the Romanian Principalities which seems very great is the name of “Ιώнъ” being in use by Vlach leaders until the very end of around 18th century. For example, Mircea the Elder (or the Great) of Wallachia has its name written at Cozia Monastery as “Ioan Mircea Great Voievod”. “Ioan” being the Romanized form of “Ιώнъ”, which later was shorten by “Ιώ”, and is a Vlach name of John and Ivan, which Ioannitsa (Little Ioan) is using, Ioan Asan IInd (depicted in a Monastery on Mount Athos) and Ioan Alexander (depicted on Gospels of Tsar Ioan Alexander) used.
Thank you for your time, have a nice day!👏🏻👍🏻👋🏻
Hello Jos!👋🏻
Vlach in Greek “Βλάχοι” (Byzantine-Greek: Βλάχος) was used particularly for Romance speaking people e.g Romanian’s and Italian’s. The medieval sources of the Rhóman’s make’s it very clear that the Vlach’s are their own ethnic people, majority being semi-nomadic pastoralists. However, it is very true that by late 14th century “Vlach” started denoting a shepherd of other ethnicities. But this is not the case in the 13th century and early 14th century, especially not in Greek and Western source’s. So no, Vlach (Βλάχος, Blas, Blaki) were referring to the ethnic people of Proto-Romanian branch. The ethnic identity of the Asan’s is very well documented in sources such as Niketas Choniates, Georgios Akropolites, Philippe Mouskes, Geoffroi de Villehardouin and Robert de Clari (amongst other’s), where they make it very clear that the three brother’s were Vlach’s.
The brother’s referring to themselves as Bulgarian Tsar’s has nothing to with their ethnic identity but with “translatio imperii”, a term originated from the medieval period, which is in latin for: “transfer of rule”. Translatio imperii was used by Emperor’s to legitimise their power and to increase it. The Holy Roman Emperor’s, such Otto the IIIrd used it to increase the power of his Empire. He claimed that this German Empire was successor state of the Roman Empire, and he called himself Roman Emperor and his Empire Roman (until Frederick Barbarossa also called it Sacrum “Holy”). It is the same case for the Vlach tsar’s, this proved by the letter’s sent by Kaloyan to Pope Innocent IIIrd, where he claimed he is descendant of the Old Bulgarian tsar’s and his Empire thus being a successor state to the Old Bulgarian Empire.
You are very much right tho that the language of the Empire was Slavonic. However I disagree with you calling it Bulgarian. This language was used by many in Europe, not just Bulgarian’s, and it was an adopted language by the old Bulgarian tsar’s. And this doesn’t prove your argument right either, as the Romanian Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia also used until the 17th century the Slavonic language.
Thank you for you for your time, for further reading, please check the following link’s:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%92%CE%BB%CE%AC%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek
“The ‘Second Bulgarian Empire.’ Its Origin and History to 1204”: By the American historian and professional in East European history: Roberts Lee Wolff
https://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/wolff_1.html
https://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/wolff_2.html
https://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/wolff_3.html
https://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/wolff_4.html
https://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/wolff_5.html
https://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/wolff_6.html
https://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/wolff_appA.html
This episode really felt like the beginning of the end…