Talk:Kaloyan of Bulgaria

message: I made a list of primary sources which claim that Kaloyan was Vlach/Romanian and another list of primary sources which claim that Kaloyan was of Bulgarian ethnicity. Note that our friend, VMORO, believes that Wikipedia should say that he was definitively Bulgarian and not mention a word about a possible Romanian ethnicity. Also, please note that ethnicity is a different thing from ancestry. I may have some Bulgarian ancestry from Dobrogea, but I am a Romanian ethnic.
-Romanian ethnicity did not exist at that time. You can get away with claiming Kaloyan was of Wallachian origin. Btw, do I need to register in order to start participating in this discussion?
: "Wallachian" is what the Slavs and Greeks called the "Romanians". bogdan | Talk 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of early Romanian noble families and rulers of Wallachia had Cuman names, such as Basarab and Thocomer. bogdan | Talk 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bogdan, ALL Bulgarian dynasties ruling during the the time of the Second Bulgarian Empire had Cuman names - Asen, Shishman and Terter. Plus, Bogdan, some of the early rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia clearly had Bulgarian names - such as Tihomir, for example. VMORO 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  You have obviously no idea of what you're talking about. Bulgarian aristrocracy during the Second Bulgarian Empire included Cuman nobles, in order to secure Cuman friendship and military support. Bulgars never slaughtered any crusaders as the crusaders emerged centuries after the Bulgars had disappeared as a notion. If you're referring to Krum slaying Nichephorus, that was after the latter had burned and pillaged Pliska. In other words, he was anything but peaceful and
civilised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.208.218 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: (no source of the Middle Ages ever claimed that was Kaloyan was Bulgarian)
Bogdan:
Nicetas Choniates, 482, 3, says that the barbarians of the Haemus region who used to be called Moesians, were now called Wallachians.
(Moesians was the name usually given by Byzantine historians to the Bulgarians - becaused they lived in the Balkan region they called himself Moesia.)
Тheodore Scutariot explicitly states that the Wallachians are Bulgarians. 
So, what is this? A direct confirmation of the theory of Zlatarsky that the term Vlachs was used to denote the Bulgarians from Paristrion.
Anyway, I think this discussion has been closed for a long time. What don't you like about the present formulation and which statement do u disagree with: that the medieval sources called the first three rulers Vlachs, that their names are most likely Cuman or that they viewed themselves as descendents of Simeon, Petar and Samuil and their state as a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire? I think we have agreed on all three statements - and that they, as at the moment, are irrefutable. So what's your problem? VMORO 19:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of early Romanian noble families and rulers of Wallachia had Cuman names, such as Basarab and Thocomer. bogdan | Talk 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bogdan, ALL Bulgarian dynasties ruling during the the time of the Second Bulgarian Empire had Cuman names - Asen, Shishman and Terter. Plus, Bogdan, some of the early rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia clearly had Bulgarian names - such as Tihomir, for example. VMORO 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  You have obviously no idea of what you're talking about. Bulgarian aristrocracy during the Second Bulgarian Empire included Cuman nobles, in order to secure Cuman friendship and military support. Bulgars never slaughtered any crusaders as the crusaders emerged centuries after the Bulgars had disappeared as a notion. If you're referring to Krum slaying Nichephorus, that was after the latter had burned and pillaged Pliska. In other words, he was anything but peaceful and
civilised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.208.218 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgarian ethnicity

message: Kaloyan has nothing to do with the Battle at Klokotnitsa which was fought more than two decades after his death. The "rex" of Wallachia and Bulgaria as he is mentioned in his correspondence with Pope Innocent III crushed the crusaders near Adrianople on April 14, 1205.
Many Western and Russian sources claim that Asen is the same as Ashina, the famous Turkic Khan dynasty. --217.9.225.146 15:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaloyan - Klokotnitsa? 

message: I was at first reticent to expand the article on Kaloyan precisely because it seems to have attracted a lot of nationalist controversy.  Then, since I had expanded the articles (or rather stubs) on all the other rulers of the Second Bulgarian Empire, I decided to do so to achieve greater overall consistency.  I think I have kept the content neutral, but additional edits reflecting a rather pro-Romanian bias quickly appeared, namely that (1) Kaloyan's other nickname (Ivanica/Ioanica) is derived from Romanian Ioan and (2) that his army was reinforced with "north-danubian Wallachians" in 1205.  The first of these statements is not accurate for two reasons: while Ioan (and also Ion) is the Romanian for "John", the medieval Bulgarian scribes also used the form Ioan (which in fact survives in the names of modern Bulgarian Orthodox clergy).  So Ioan is both Bulgarian and Romanian and cannot be claimed as exclusive to either language.  The second statement is not sustainable, because according to Romanian traditions, the Vlachs/Wallachians settled in what became Wallachia later in the 13th century.  If Kaloyan's army contained Wallachians proper (as opposed to any persons from the territory then labeled Wallachia=Moesia, for which please see below), which it probably did, they would have most likely come from south of the Danube at that point in history.   
The fiercely contested issue of whether Kaloyan and his brothers were Bulgarian or Wallachian is neither solvable nor productive.  Firstly we are dealing with a largely pre-national era, and one in which nomenclature was used rather liberally.  I have inserted a balanced summary of the issue in the final paragraphs of the article on Peter IV of Bulgaria, which I insert below:
While the person of Peter IV remains little known and enygmatic, the ethnic nature of the rebellion which he headed together with his brothers has been hotly disputed in the age of nationalism. Bulgarian historians insist on the Bulgarian origin of the rebellion and its leaders, while Romanian historians want to see them as proto-Romanian Vlachs (Wallachians).
The main source on the restoration of the Second Bulgarian Empire is the Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates. Choniates refers to the people of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I as "the barbarians round the mountain Haimos, earlier called Mysians, and are now called Vlachs" (Choniates, 482). The designation Mysians is derived from the Roman province of Moesia, corresponding to the territory between the Balkan (Haimos/Haemus) mountains and the Lower Danube.
The term Mysians had been used to designate the Bulgarians by classicizing Byzantine historians since at least Leo the Deacon in the second half of the 10th century. (In the same classicizing vein, Byzantine authors were want to call the Russians "Scythians" and the Serbs "Triballoi".) To add to the confusion, elsewhere in Choniates' history, the subjects of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I are on occassion called "Mysians", "Vlachs" or two different but conjoined peoples, "Bulgarians and Vlachs" (Choniates, 485). The contemporary German (Austrian) chronicler Ansbert mentions "the Vlach Kalopetrus and his brother Assanius" (33), and calls Peter IV "ruler of the Vlachs and the greater part of the Bulgarians" (58).
The eminent Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarski has drawn attention to the fact that under Byzantine rule Bulgaria proper was divided between a theme of Bulgaria (in the west) and a theme called Paradounabion/Paristrion and later Moesia (in the east). Since Niketas Choniates explicitly states that "the Mysians ... are now called Vlachs", Zlatarski concludes that the conjoint terms Bulgarians and Vlachs found in the sources indicate the extension of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I's control over the population of both themes, Bulgaria and Moesia. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Ansbert, who would be correct to identify Peter IV as master of (all) Moesia (as ruler of the Vlachs) and of (a part) of Bulgaria (as ruler of the greater part--superlative!--of the Bulgarians). However, Zlatarski's analysis glosses over the important implication that in order for the Mysians to be called Vlachs in Choniates' time, there must have been very significant Vlach (Wallachian) population on the territory of Moesia itself. This means that even if the medieval description of the population is based primarily on the administrative division of the themes, the popular support for the rebellion of Peter IV and Ivan Asen I consisted of both Bulgarians and Vlachs, rather than exclusively one group or the other.
It should be noted that while the primarily Cuman-populated area between the Danube and the Carpathians fell under Bulgarian suzerainty after the restoration of the Second Bulgarian Empire, Wallachia proper was not yet in existence, and according to Romanian tradition, the Vlachs settled in that area in the second half of the 13th century, in the wake of the Mongol invasion and the displacement of the Cumans. This means that the "Vlachia" in the titles of "king/emperor of Bulgarians and Vlachs" or "king/emperor of Bulgaria and Vlachia" found in the correspondence between Peter IV's successor Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III is probably still the Byzantine theme of Moesia. It should also be noted that these titles never occur in Bulgarian sources, and are found exclusively in the foreign, Latin-language diplomatic correspondence of Kaloyan's reign. The Bulgarian title reads "emperor and autocrat of the Bulgarians", later expanded to include "all Bulgarians and Greeks". Nevertheless the characterization of the state in the imperial title need not correspond completely to its ethnic composition, as it hearkened back to First Bulgarian Empire, which had been conquered by the Byzantines in 1018.
The ethnic origin of Peter IV, Ivan Asen I, and Kaloyan has been subjected to the same nationalist controversy. In his correspondence with Pope Innocent III, Kaloyan followed up the pope's flattering suggestion and called the earlier Bulgarian emperors Simeon I, Peter I, and Samuel his "ancestors". This descent is most likely nothing more than a legitimizing fiction. The "Vlachian" origin of the brothers attested in the sources may simply confirm what is already known, that they lived in Moesia. Nothing in the historical evidence allows us to identify them as either specifically Vlachs or Bulgarians. However, the non-Christian name of Ivan Asen I and his sobriquet Belgun seem to indicate Turkic, perhaps Cuman origin. This is a likely option, as large numbers of Cumans had settled in Moesia in the 12th century, and continued to do so in the 13th. If that is correct, then the nationalist controversy becomes obsolete, as the Cumans are an extinct people, which is neither Bulgarian nor Romanian, and has intermixed with both.''
In other words, the founders of the Second Bulgarian Empire were neither entirely (or exclusively) Bulgrian or Romanian, but most probably Cuman.  Their subjects were called Bulgarians and Wallachians because of the administrative division of the liberated territory between the Byzantine themes or duchies of Bulgaria (west) and Wallachia (earlier Moesia, earlier yet Paradounabion/Paristrion, east).  At the same time, in order for Moesia to be called Wallachia in the first place, it must have contained a sizeable population of Vlachs/Wallachians, who would have surely been involved in the revolt against Byzantine rule alongside with their Bulgarian neighbors.  If this 800-year old event should be an issue of modern national pride, then perhaps the ancient cooperation of the two ethnie ought to be the taken as model, rather than their modern opposition.  Consider the futility of the French and the Germans arguing over who has a better right to Charlemagne.  At any rate, I ask that future editors to this article keep a neutral persepective and not interpolate any evidence without fully considering its implications in this complex set of circumstances.
Imladjov 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaloyan and Wallachians

message: Greier,
Wikipedia is committed to neutrality, and your edits clearly fall rather short of that ideal.  While I recognize that the issue is both unsettled and perhaprs impossible to settle because of extranious reasons, I wish to keep the actual article free from reflections of either extreme.  But since you insist on claiming that your position is unequivocally supported by the sources, kindly make sure you reflect them correctly and unselectively, without glossing over explicit statements such as Choniates' equasion of Mysians and Wallachians and so forth.  And also note that I agree that there must have been plenty of Wallachians in Moesia in order for the land to become known as Wallachia in the later 12th century in the first place.
Now as to the ordering of elements in Kaloyan's title, please consider the following references from the actual correspondence between Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III (I have attempted to collect every single reference to the monarch's title or the description of the state or church).  Unless otherwise specified, the letters are between Innocent III and either Kaloyan or his Archbishop of Tărnovo Vasilij.
Letter [l.V] 115, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXIV:
Littere Caloiohannis domini Bulgarorum et Blachorum, misse domino Innocentio pape III, translate de bulgarico in grecum et de greco in latinum.... Ego Caloiohannes imperator Bulgarorum et Blachorum...
Letter 116, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXIV:
Nobili viro Caloiohanni domino Bulgarorum et Blachorum... Michaelis regis bulgariric... universa Bulgarorum et Blachorum ecclesia...
Letter 119, Mighe, Patrologia Latina CCXIV:
ad dilecti filii nobilis viris Caloiohannis domini Bulgarorum et Blachorum
Letter 142, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXIV:
Caloiohannes, imperator Bulgarorum, sanctissimo domino, fidei Christianorum ab Oriente usque ad Occidentem patriarchae, papae Romano.
Letter 143, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXIV:
Receptis litteris, quas sub nomine nobilis viri Caloiohannis domini Bulgarorum per dilectum filium Conctantinum presbyterum et Sergium comestabulum... Illo quoque cum litteris eiusdem domini Bulgarorum, tuis etiam et Bellote principis...
Letter [l.VII] 1, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV: 
Caloiohanni illustri Bulgarorum et Blachorum regi... eiusque metropolitani tam in Bulgarie quam Blachie provinciis constituti subiaceant...
Letter 2, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
... archiepiscopo Trinovitano Bulgarorum et Blachorum primati... Karissimum in Christo filium nostrum Kaloiohannem, hactenus ipsorum dominum, regem statuimus super eos per dilectum filium... Te quoque in regno Bulgarorum et Blachorum primatem statuimus... benedicenti et coronandi regi Bulgarorum et Blachorum... quam in qualibet cathedrali ecclesia Bulgarie et Blachie ... ante te per totam Bulgariam et Blachiam deferendi fraternitati tue licentiam impertimur.
Letter 3, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
Archiepiscopo Trniovitano Bulgarorum et Blachorum primati...
Letter 4, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
Cum placuit Domino nostro Iesu Christo me dominum et imperatorem totius Bulgarie et Vlachie facere... beate memorie imperatorum nostrorum predecessorum leges, unde ipsi sumpserunt regnum Bulgarorum et firmamentum imperiale... beate memorie illi imperatores Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Symeon, Petrus et Samuel et nostri predecessores... beate memorie imperatores totius Bulgarie et Vlachie...
Letter 5, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
...[ego] archiepiscupus Basilius de minoribus et humillimis totius Bulgarie et Blachie...
Letter 6, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
imperator omnium Bulgarorum et Blachorum cum omnibus princibus imperiii mei multum bene sum per Deum et sanctam orationem tuam... misit imperium meum archiepiscopum meum et totius bulgarice regionis et universalem sancte et magne ecclesie Trinove, et magnum hominem imperii mei, nunc nominatum primatem et archipiscopum totius Bulgarie et Blachie, nomine Basilium... predecessorum meorum imperatorum Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Symeonis, Petri et Samuelis progenitorum meorum et ceterorum ominum imperatorum Bulgarorum... primatem et archiepiscopum totius Bulgarie et Blachie... Et de confinio Hungarie, Bulgarie et Blachie relinquo iudicio sanctitatis tue et ita habeat imperium meum iusticias Bulgarie et Blachie... episcopatus Bulgarie pertinent ad imperium meum... Imperator Bulgarie Caloiohannes.
Letter 7, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
karissimus in Christo filius noster Caloiohannes rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum
Letter 8, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
...illustri Regi Bulgarorum et Blachorum... Bulgarorum et Blachorum populis... in Bulgariam et Blachiam a nostro latere destinamus... totius Bulgarie ac Blachie primatem...
Letter 9, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
... Archiepiscopo Trinovitano totius Bulgarie et Blachie primati et aliis archiepiscopis, episcopis, clero et populo in Bulgaria et Blachia costitutis.
Letter 11, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
Ego archiepiscopus Trinovitanus, primas totius Bulgarie et Blachie... Ceterum cum aliquem coronavero in regem Bulgarorum et Blachorum iuxta indulgentiam michi et successoribus meis ab apostolica sede concessam...
Letter 12, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
Caloiohanni regi Bulgarorum et Blachorum illustri.
Letter 12, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to Hungary):
Bulgarorum et Blachorum ecclesiam... Bulgarorum et Blachorum populus
Letter 126, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to the king of Hungary):
quod in finibus Ungariae iniuriose impedisset legato cardinali Leoni transitum in Bulgariam... regressus in Bulgariam et Blachiam... in Bulgariam et Blachiam per regnum tuum... quos in Bulgariam duxerat transmittendos... ut eum transferrent in Bulgariam cum honore... ubi solo Danubio mediante regnum Ungarie a Bulgarorum provincia separatur... episcopo Bulgaro transitum fecerunt omnino precludi... domino Bulgarorum per nuntios demandaret...
Letter 127, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (to the same):
nuntiis nostris in terram Ioannitii dominum Bulgarorum et ipsius nonutiis ad ecclesiam Romanam... Nam antiquitus in Bulgaria multi reges successive fuerunt auctoritate apostolica coronati, sicut Petrus et Samuel et alii nonnulli post illos... Nam et ad predicationem sancte memorie Nicolai pape predecessoris nostri rex Bulgarorum... sed tandem prevalentibus Grecis, Bulgari prediderunt regiam dignitatem, quin immo compulsi sunt gravi sub iugo constantinopolitano servire, donec novissime duo fratres, Petrus videlicet ei Ioannitius, de priorum regum prosapia descentes, terram patrum suorum non tam occupare, quam recuperare ceperunt... ut iam non superesset nisi Danubii transitus de Ungarie in Bulgariam, quia tamen iuxta verbum poeticum turpius eiicitur...
Letter 137, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (to the same):
procederet ad coronandum Ioannitium dominum Bulgarorum, donec controversiam... 
Letter 203, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (to the [Latin] church of Constantinople):
sive in Bulgaria et Blachia...
Letter 230, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
Caloiohannes rex totius Bulgarie et Vlachie... Et universa Bulgaria atque Blachie et omnis imperii mei...
Letter 231, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
... a me Basilio, humili Bulgarorum et Blachorum primate... benedixit imperatori Caloiohanni domino omnium Bulgarorum atque Blachorum...
Letter [l.VIII] 125, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to a French bishop?):
Rex quoque Blachorum et Bulgarorum cum Cumanis, Turcis et Grecis adversus Latinos pugnantes...
Letter 129, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
Caloiohanni regi Bulgarirum et Blachorum illustri... Trinovitano archiepiscopo Bulgarorum et Blachorum primati...
Letter 131, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Henry of Constantinople to Innocent III):
Adrianopolim videlicet, que civitas est Grecie munitissima et montibus tantum interpositis, Blachorum affinis pupulis... Porro audito a Iohannitio Blachorum domino... irruit subito Blachus ille Iohannitius in nostros... cum multitudine barbarorum innumera, Blachis videlicet, Commannis et aliis... per litteras ipsius Blachi confederationem ipsius cum Turcis et ceteris crucis Christi inimicis continentes edocti firmus...
Letter 132, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to Henry of Constantinople):
cum karissimo in Christo filio nostro Kaloiohanne rege Bulgarorum et Blachorum illustri, ut inter Bulgaros et Latinos fidelis et stabilis amicitia de cetero perseveret...
Letter [l.IX] 199, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV (Innocent III to western crusaders):
et tam contra ... Blachum, quam contra alios hostes imperii postmodum sepius triumphavit...
Letter [l.X] 65, Migne, Patrologia Latina CCXV:
Carissimo in Christo filio nostro Kaloiohanni regi Bulgarorum illustri.
As can be plainly seen by these numerous examples of diplomatic correspondence (the most primary type of source), the title is ruler of "Bulgarians and Vlachs" or of "Bulgaria and Wallachia", or simply of "Bulgarians" or "Bulgaria".  Note that in Letter 131 [the future Emperor] Henry of Constantinople identifies the region across the mountains from Adrianople as the region of the Vlachs, i.e., that Moesia is indeed the Wallachia in question.  The same letter represents the only exception to the general pattern, as it refers to Kaloyan's subjects exclusively as "Vlachs".  This means that the term "Vlach" cannot possibly refer exclusively to Vlachs proper in these texts, but rather to population coming from a land identified as "Wallachia".  Of course this means that much of that population must have been "Vlach", abut much is not all or even most.  Moreover, the Wallachia in question cannot be that in or near Thessaly, or the historical Wallachia between the Danube and the Carpathians (both because of where the sources situate it, and because Wallachia proper north of the Danube did not come into being until later in the 13th century, with or without Radu Negru).
On names, you are clearly overreaching.  There is nothing particularly Romanian about Ioan and Ioanica.  Ioan is the natural Slavic simplification of the Greek Iōannēs with the fallout of the Greek nominative suffix.  The form Ioanica is the normal medieval Slavic dominitive, seen in other names like Nikolica, Nestorica, Dušica, Sigrica and countless others.  By contrast, the forms Ivan and Ivanica are a result of modern standardization, although they were already developed in the Middle Ages (compare another diminutive Ivanko).  The fact that forms like Ioan and Ioaniţa occur in Romanian does not change the matter, it simply testifies to the cultural interchange between Bulgarians and proto-Romanians in the Middle Ages.  Tudor for Todor (itself a Slavic derivative of Greek Theodōros) is found in Bulgarian Cyrillic sources as early as the 10th century.  Would you also derive Welsh Tudor (from earlier Tewdwr, Theodore) from Romanian?  How you can base any specific claim on Petru, I fail to see.  Căliman cannot be claimed as a source of Romanian influence, as the name Kaliman was derived from Hungarian Kálman, itself a rendering of Latin Columbanus.  I know of only two medieval examples of the name Boril (Greek Borilas), both connected with Bulgaria, and at least the earlier one (a courtier of the Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates) with apparently Cuman origin.  You underestimate the Cuman connection.  Of the three brothers, only Ivan Asen I bears names that are not purely Christian in origin.  These names are Asen, a proper personal name, and Belgun, a sobriquet.  Both of them are of Turkic, i.e. most likely Cuman orgin.  
You should be careful in inferring origin from such folk etymology of names.  If anything, the Bulgarian Slavic language was put into writing earlier, and was exported through church literature throughout the area.  If Romanian and Bulgarian names must be derived from one or the other, the derivation of Romanian from Bulgarian (and/or other Slavic languages) would actually make more historical and linguistic sense.  It would also help explain the appearance of clearly Slavic names like Radu (Radul), Bogdan, Mircea (Mirčo, a diminutive of names like Ljubomir), Vladislav (and its derivative Vlad) and others.   
Lastly, I do not know you and do not seek or care to impress you.  I am just concerned with factual accuracy and a reasonable degree of historical objectivity and neutrality.  If being "calm" and scholarly is a bad thing in your book, so be it.
Best, 68.40.196.70 17:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaloyan and Wallachians

message: Greier,
I happen to study Byzantium and the medieval Balkans as my area of expertise, and I am sorry if my knowledge of the field is seen as a matter of arrogance by you.
Your analysis of the Slavic diminutive is based primarily on modern developments which do not always apply to medieval forms.  What is now almost exclusively a feminine form need not have been applicable only to feminine nouns in the medieval period.  Ioanica is the medieval form, Ivanica is the form produced by modern standardization (corresponding to archaic and now ecclesiastical Ioan, now replaced by secular Ivan), which is why I cite both.  Since Kaloyan's actual signet ring reads "Kalojan", neither of the other forms need be used.  Note also that "Kalojan" is the usual form used by him in his letters to the pope.
Which Tudor did you see being called a Wallachian in the sources?  I do not a single occasion in which any one of the persons we are discussing was called both Tudor and a Wallachian?  I am sure there were many Wallachians named Tudor, but I am not aware of one here (yes, Peter IV is called a Wallachian, but he is referred to as Kalopetrus, not Tudor).  And certainly there is no requirement that every Bulgarian Theodore, has to be really a Wallachian.  The Tudor I was referring to was a first cousin in the male line of the 10th century emperor Simeon I.  And Simeon of all people did not need to make up a myth about being Bulgarian if he and his predecessors were really Wallachians.  
It really does not matter whether you or I see how Wallachian shepherds (if that is what they were) named their child after a Hungarian king.  But you simply have to consider the historical background.  Ivan Asen II married the daughter of the Hungarian King Andrew II (András II), and named one of his sons by her Kaliman Asen.  The child bore the names of his mother's brother and uncle, both of them named Kálmán.  Whether the Romanian mountain Căliman is named after any Hungarian Kálmán I do not know and do not wish to speculate.  But forgive me for choosing the far more reasonable, all but explicit, and generally accepted derivation of the alien name Kaliman from the ruler's Hungarian relations.
Your reference to the Romanian "-ilă" in Samuilă, Gerilă, Nilă, etc., as a sign of Romanian influence simply shows you to be unfamiliar with Old Church Slavonic and Medieval Bulgarian (more or less the same thing for much of the Middle Ages).  From the implemantation of the Cyrillic alphabet to the 20th-century orthography reform, every Bulgarian name ending on a consonant (whether "l" or any other) was written with the hard sign ă (ъ) at the end (Симеонъ, Калиманъ, Михаилъ, Tодоръ).  At first this was probably pronounced as a short vowel, but in modern times it became silent, and was finally dropped from the standardized spelling.  Once again, if you want to show derivation of one set of forms from the other, the derivative form may be the Romanian one. 
You keep referring to the sources identifying particular people (Peter IV, Ivan Asen I, Kaloyan) as "Vlachs".  So it is.  But that does not mean that you may automatically assume that the term "Vlach" here signifies the same thing that it did in the time of Vlad Ţepeş (for example).  Indeed you ask: How come the one who leads armies of Wallachians and Cumans would take the title of "King of Bulgaria and Wallachia"? Excellent question.  And the answer is the opposite of what you seem to be trying to prove.  If the term Vlachs or Wallachians here was exclusive in an ethnic sense, or if it were based on a land that was entirely or predominantly inhabited by ethnic Wallachians, this conflict in usage would make little sense.  Once again, consider the usage in the sources:
1. Since at least Leo Diaconus (Leon Diakonos) the Bulgarians are commonly referred to as Mysians in classicizing fashion, including Boris II as the basileus of the Mysians, etc.  There is no dynastic break allowing for a new line of a new ethnicity coming to the throne.
2. Niketas Choniates explicitly states that the barbarians around the Haimos mountain were known previously as Mysians and now as Wallachians.  This area corresponds to the Byzantine theme of Paristrion/Paradounabion, later Moesia, and by implication from Choniates' statement, identifiable as a "Wallachia".
3. The crusader chronicler Ansbert, describing the progress of the army of Frederick Barbarossa (in which he was a participant) through Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire describes Peter and Ivan Asen as Vlachs but also has Peter as ruler of "Wallachia and the greater part of Bulgaria".  Which Wallachia is that?  Not the one in Thessaly which is too far away, and not the one between the Carpathians and the Danube which does not yet exist.  The answer comes from ...
4. the letter from Emperor Henry of Constantinople to Pope Innocent III, in which it is stated that this "Wallachia" was situated across the mountains from Adrianople.  In other words, precisely Moesia, the older Paristrion/Paradounabion.
Now you are left with two choices: 
(a) assert that the entire population of this "Wallachia" (Moesia) is ethnically exclusively "Vlach", or 
(b) accept that people of various ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Bulgarians proper, Cumans, Vlachs proper, and any others) inhabiting a province referred to as "Wallachia" (in this case still Moesia) can be referred to as "Wallachians".  Historical sense and multiple examples from all over Europe in the Middle Ages show that the second solution is the viable one.  Consequently, the "Wallachians" in question are the population of "Wallachia", that is to say the population of Moesia.  Reversing the equivalency explicitly given by Niketas Choniates, we can equally well call them Mysians.  So the "Wallachians" who pop up in the sources relating to people from Moesia in the late 12th and early 13th century (but not earlier or later) cannot be considered to be exclusively ethnic "Vlachs".  Since, then, such terms cannot be taken at face value without due consideration, it is left to circumstantial pointers such as the names "Asen" and "Belgun" to point to a more precise "ethnic" affiliation.
In order for Moesia to become known as "Wallachia", I think that it must be assumed that much of its population was made up of "Vlachs".  This may well have been a new development, and we know that the area underwent the influx of new population (including Pechenegs and Cumans) in the 12th century.  But it also means that we cannot treat the sources as indicative of unequivocal and exclusive ethnic  identity (to whatever extent that existed).  It is also worth asking yourself the question why the sources cease to speak of Wallachia and Wallachians in relation to the Second Bulgarian Empire after the first generation of its rulers.  The disappearance of the old Byzantine administrative division into Bulgaria and Moesia ("Wallachia") is a more likely explanation than yet another major demographic change.
As to Kaloyan's title.  First of all you have to keep in mind the undeniable problems with the meaning of the terms "Wallachia" and "Wallachians" outlined above.  Second, and more important, ask yourself this: did Geoffroi de Villehardouin, did Robert de Clari, did Henry of Constantinople, did Ansbert, did Niketas Choniates crown Kaloyan emperor of "such-and-such"?  No.  Pope Innocent III crowned Kaloyan "rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum" or "rex Bulgarie et Blachie" through his Cardinal Leo.  Kaloyan thanked the pope and called himself "imperator Bulgarorum et Blachorum" or "imperator Bulgariae et Blachie" in document after document.  Read the instances in the letters again.  And note that in the article the title is enclosed by quotation marks showing direct citation of the usage found in the relevant sources, which are those connected with the issuing authority (the Pope), and the ruler himself (Kaloyan).  This is why your repeated reversal of the elements is utterly unjustified and represents tampering with the historical evidence.  I am correcting it yet again, with an additional note that should address some of your concern, but remain faithful to the evidence of the sources.
Please keep into consideration the intended objectivity of Wikipedia and confine your edits to factual correctness.
Imladjov 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaloyan and Wallachians (3)

message: Greier,
Here are the two edits I entered immediately after the above posting:
I changed:
"The pope was not willing to make concessions of that scale, and when his envoy, Cardinal Leo, arrived in Bulgaria, he anointed the Archbishop Vasilij of Tărnovo as Primate of Bulgaria, and crowned Kaloyan as "King (rex) of Wallachians and Bulgarians", instead of emperor." 
to
"The pope was not willing to make concessions of that scale, and when his envoy, Cardinal Leo, arrived in Bulgaria, he anointed the Archbishop Vasilij of Tărnovo as Primate of Bulgaria, and crowned Kaloyan as rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum ("King of Bulgarians and Wallachians") or rex Bulgarie et Blachie ("King of Bulgaria and Wallachia"), instead of emperor. (Crusader sources often refer to Kaloyan as ruler of "Wallachians and Bulgarians" or simply of "Wallachians", but the meaning of the term in this context is disputed; papal and native sources mostly use "Bulgarians and Wallachians" or simply "Bulgarians".)"
This is factually accurate and incorporates your point
The second edit is a logical and stylistic one:
I changed:
"Kaloyan led his army composed of Wallachians and Bulgarians (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans and newly raised Wallachians) southwards to relieve the siege of Adrianople by the Latins."
to
"Kaloyan led his army composed of Wallachians and Bulgarians (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans) southwards to relieve the siege of Adrianople by the Latins."
Since Kaloyan's army was composed of Wallachians (whatever that measn) and Bulgarians (ditto), it makes no sense to add that they were reinforced by newly raised Wallachians.  Since these were Kaloyan's immediate subjects, they are not a reinforcing group like the allied or federate Cumans.  If you wish to stress the mobilization of new troops, what makes you think they were of any different composition than the regular armies assembled by Kaloyan.  By the way, the description of Kaloyan's last campaigns in 1207 includes reference to a particularly large force which included Bulgarians, Wallachians, Cumans, Turks, and even Russians.
Something else which I am about to change:
"Ioanitsa (variously rendered Ioannitza, Ioanitsa, Ioanica, Ivanica), a diminutive form of Ivan or Ioan (equivalent to "John" in both Bulgarian and Romanian)"
to
"Ioanitsa (Ioanica), variously rendered Ioannitza, Ivanitsa (Ivanica), a diminutive form of Ivan or Ioan (equivalent to "John" in both Bulgarian and Romanian)"
because:
1. Ioanica represents the scholarly transliteration of Ioanitsa, and should be kept immediately after it.
2. There is no reason to repeat Ioanitsa in the list.
3. Ivanica is the scholarly transliteration of Ivanitsa, and should be kept immediately after it.
Imladjov 00:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaloyan edits

message: I want you to consider the redundancy and stylistic inadequacy of the statement:
"Kaloyan led his army composed of Wallachians and Bulgarians (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans and newly raised Wallachians) southwards to relieve the siege of Adrianople by the Latins."
If the army is composed by Wallachians, you do not need to add "newly raised Wallachians" to the Cumans who are brought in as external reinforcement.  This has nothing to do with what these Wallachians are, just with the way of phrasing sensible English.  Either both the Cumans and the Wallachians are newly raised, or the Wallachians are the same as before and the Cumans are the reinforcement.
As for your comment that you are justified to remove "Bulgarians" from the description of the army, kindly recall that before you chose to insert descriptives here, I had referred simply to Kaloyan's army: "As the Latin Emperor Baldwin I began to subdue rebel cities, Kaloyan led his army (reinforced by large contingents of Cumans) southwards to relieve the siege of Adrianople by the Latins."  This is both factually correct and does not involve contentious issues open to dispute or interpretation.  If you believe Kaloyan's subjects to be pure ethnic Wallachians, then so be it, "his army" surely does not preclude such a state of affairs.  However the point is contentious and there is no need to complicate a very casual statement with this, which is already discussed earlier in the article.  If you wish to emphasize the language of the source, why not quote it, e.g., And  Kaloyan "raised a great force of Comans and Wallachians" and proceeded to etc...? 
Your reference to Pope Innocent III's description of Kaloyan as descended from Roman nobles (or more specifically nobles from the city of Rome) is really not something that proves Vlach ethnicity.  Remember your own statement about "how some sheperds (that`s what sources say they were) from the Hameus, would name theyr child after a hungarian king, wich in his turn was baptised with a latin name".  Do these sound like Roman nobles to you?  The pope is out to flatter.  His reference to a "Romanness" in Kaloyan is probably as invented as is Kaloyan's descent from the rulers of the First Bulgarian Empire (a suggestion first posited by the pope and then gladly taken up by Kaloyan, who started referring to them as his progenitors instead of, as earlier, his predecessors).  Moreover, while everyone would agree that the Wallachians are descendants of the Latinized population of the western and northern Balkans (and possibly even Dacia), identifying them as nobility from the city of Rome per se would be quite a stretch.  And which are they, of the two flattering fictions supplied by the pope?  (This is a rhetorical question, I know that the answer is: neither.)
It is obvious that pursuing this discussion with you is futile.  The evidence (or much of it) is out there for all to see, and so is your historical sense and linguistic knowledge.  For my part, I continue to make sure that the article is factually accurate.
Imladjov 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noble Romans

message: As fars as I am concerned, Kaloyan's and his brothers' sway extended across the Daunbe. This was the case for other rulers in both the I and II Bulgarian empires starting with Asparuh, Krum and Simeon. Do we have concrete information about those territories accompagnied by some maps? Kaloyan* 04:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trans-Danubian territories in I and II Bulgarian Empires 

message: There is no medieval document in Romanian language, which includes the name of the medieval ruler Kaloyan. According to user AlexDan there is Romanian folklore tradition of usage of name Ioniţă Caloian, but there isn't evidence yet that this folklore tradition has any direct connection with the historical figure of this concrete medieval ruler. Still more, it remains unclear when and where exactly this tradition was recorded and how it was published. Until now there isn't also any citation of concrete text of this tradition, proving that it is relevant in the article about the medieval ruler Kaloyan. I hope user AlexDan will offer at least one argument that there is Romanian folklore, dedicated to the concrete historical figure of tsar Kaloyan, otherwise this information has to be deleted from the article as irrelevant.
On the other hand the form of the name of Kaloyan in contemporary Romanian historiography is irrelevant as a source for the etymology and medieval tradition of this name. User AlexDan insists on inclusion of this name on the ground that Kaloyan was part of the Romanian history, but in fact Kaloyan ruled territories, which are parts of many other contemporary countries (Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Serbia, Republic of Macedonia) and is part of their history too. The part of his realm, which belongs to present-day Romania (not clearly defined part of Wallachia), embraced less than a third of the territory of Kaloyan's state. Moreover, there is no practice in English Wikipedia to list all existing popular contemporary forms of the names of medieval rulers.
I hope that AlexDan will stop his anachronistic "romanization" of this article. - Jackanapes 10:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two parts in my phrase: in Romanian tradition there is a king Caloian, apart from other customs such as Caloian. Illiterate peasants could not read about him, so it's a 600 years old tradition. This part is referenced with Giurescu. This name (Ioniţă Caloian) established for more than 600 years in Romanian, is also found in Romanian historiography. No Ioanitsa, no Kaloyan. This is referenced with Xenopol. If Turks or greeks would like to add names like let's say Iani Kalojan, because he is part of their national history (although he wasn't greek or turk but vlach or maybe cuman) it's ok with me, servers have enough space. What are you doing is vandalising a sourced sentence without bringing even one source for your claims. If you cannot understand this simple matter it's your problem. And if you want more sources I have them: Iorga, Constantiniu etc.--Alex:Dan 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to check at the library, so it should take some time, as I am a little bit crowded now. (finally some decent arguments!) --Alex:Dan 14:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the inclusion of the Romanian form of the name Kaloyan 

message: Does anyone know if Kaloyan had any Armenian blood?--Moosh88 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read such theory until now. AFAIK there are Bulgarian, Vlach and Cuman theories. - Vulgarian 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaloyan and Armenian?

message: This is the first time I've heard Kaloyan nicknamed thus. It would be wise to source the statement that he indeed had this nickname.
LaughingSkull (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also concerned that a name or term that the source says Kaloyan "called himself" is not the same thing as being "known as" that name. This Roman-slayer name should be moved to within the body of the article and be clearly stated that he called himself this. He clearly was not widely known as this name.--Tataryn (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The Romanslayer?

message: I want a neutral opinion about the inclusion of the Romanian name in the lead (the thread below) (SamiraJ (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. I have noticed the same for at least 3 or 4 Bulgarian rulers. I have tweaked the lead and left the names in the early life section, although it might really warrant a separate Name/s section. How do you find it now? --Laveol T 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead looks a lot better, certainly.  IMO, if there is a complicated point like, in this case, the use of names, it should be shifted out of the lead section to somewhere else becaus this somewhat avoids the thorny issue of what is notable enough to include.  A separate section can have room for much less notable items without such controversy. siafu (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a Name section and I've included the Romanian name there too. Do you agree with this? (SamiraJ (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just tweaked it a bit since he was clearly not called by his Romanian name at the time. He had a Latin and a Greek (Byzantine) name. The Romanian one is coined by present-day (maybe better to use the term modern) historians. --Laveol T 17:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: The full reference for "Vásáry 2005" seems to be missing. (Hohum @) 19:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I added the reference. Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vásáry 2005, full reference missing. 

message: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:
...
When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II"
And so in this article in "According to Kaloyan's letter to the pope..." the word pope should be capitalised as referring "to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name". Similarly in several other cases. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS: titles of people 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello, since the name of Johannitsa/Ioannitsa Kaloyan is clearly romanian, does anyone have sources about this man's ethnicity? 46.97.168.102 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaloyan ethnicity 

message: I saw that there was some talk about this in the edits but all it amounted to was “it says so in a source”. However, that doesn’t make the statement any less incorrect or biased. There is no proof that Ioannitsa is an exclusively Vlach name. You can actually see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diminutives_by_language, that the diminutive -itsa isn’t unique to Vlach/Romanian and is certainly a Slavic influence in the language – “Romanian uses suffixes to create diminutives, most of these suffixes being of Latin or Slavic origin.”
Madgearu’s statement that “The name of the youngest brother, “little John” (Ioniţă), demonstrates that the brothers who started the revolt were Vlachs. The diminutive is Vlach and is not attested among speakers of Bulgarian.” is incorrect. The claim that the diminutive -itsa is Vlach and is not attested among speakers of Bulgarian is, as I showed above, false.
Male names ending in -itsa attested among speakers of Bulgarian: Баица (Baitsa), Балица (Balitsa), Бахица (Bahitsa), Белица (Belitsa), Божица (Bozhitsa), Братица (Bratitsa), Бръзица (Brazitsa), Бурица (Buritsa). Taken from Iordan Zaimov’s “Bulgarian name dictionary” (Български именник), 1988. This is just male names and just ones starting with B, if I were to include all names, male and female, ending in the diminutive -itsa I’d be writing here for days.
Ioannitsa is not an exclusively Vlach name. Saying it is, is unfounded and biased, no matter if it is a quotation or not. Блѫгаринъ (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ioannitsa an exclusively Vlach name?