Bulgarian campaign is awesome

[Cryptic]

really enjoying it!

[Gorilianul]

To be honest they could have made the campaign around Ivan Asen and his brother Peter. Even though they founded Bulgaria, they were vlachs and Romania shares a common history with Bulgaria at this point as being a vlach/bulgarian state. Their name suggest that they were of turkic ancestry, probably cumans. This campaign would have been very varried containing probably gameplay ranging from turks, cumans, slavs to bulgarians and maybe even tatars. Allied at times with any of these faction and probably even with normans (franks or sicilians) all against the Byzantine Empire.

[IYI Кума Лиса IYI]

Ah yes not only do we have the Turkic nonsense again but we also are going with the Vlach train as well. Total rubbish really.

Simeon the Great or Kaloyan would have been better, but that campaign is ok I guess.

[Gorilianul]

IYI Кума Лиса IYI a écrit :

Ah yes not only do we have the Turkic nonsense again but we also are going with the Vlach train as well. Total rubbish really.

Simeon the Great or Kaloyan would have been better, but that campaign is ok I guess.

Bulgarians like to think they are of iranian origin (when they are a turkic people). Kaloyan was still from the Asen family, don't know why you would sidestep that Ivan was the most important member who facilitated the rebellion against the Byzantine Empire and the one who contributed to the foundation of the first bulgar state.

Also Kaloyan had a cuman wife. The vlachs themselves many of them were of cuman origin, for instance the ruler Basarab whose name is a mixture of cuman words (Basar - to rule, Aba - Father). It is possible that even Vlad Tepes himself had some cuman ancestry. The name Bashar al Assad (Sirian President) comes remarkably similar to Basarab. There is something about Eastern/SouthEastern Europeans that like to deny the big cuman/turkish (both before and after the ottoman empire) admixture into their peoples as something shameful and unpure for their peoples, but the cumans were mainly absorbed into local populations while some were given asylum in hungary. But some settled into what is now Southern Romania and Bulgaria and mixed with the locals. Much like what happened to a great deal of Crimeean Tatars, the ones that inhabitated the black sea coast, and the ones lower. I've known some people with tatar origins or even have their family name as "Tatar" while being from that area. Their ethnical identity however was slowly lost in favor of the domninant Romanian/Bulgarian but their influence and genetic baggage as a turkish peoples is unquestionable.

[blauden97]

Gorilianul a écrit :

IYI Кума Лиса IYI a écrit :

Ah yes not only do we have the Turkic nonsense again but we also are going with the Vlach train as well. Total rubbish really.

Simeon the Great or Kaloyan would have been better, but that campaign is ok I guess.

Bulgarians like to think they are of iranian origin (when they are a turkic people). Kaloyan was still from the Asen family, don't know why you would sidestep that Ivan was the most important member who facilitated the rebellion against the Byzantine Empire and the one who contributed to the foundation of the first bulgar state.

Also Kaloyan had a cuman wife. The vlachs themselves many of them were of cuman origin, for instance the ruler Basarab whose name is a mixture of cuman words (Basar - to rule, Aba - Father). It is possible that even Vlad Tepes himself had some cuman ancestry. The name Bashar al Assad (Sirian President) comes remarkably similar to Basarab. There is something about Eastern/SouthEastern Europeans that like to deny the big cuman/turkish (both before and after the ottoman empire) admixture into their peoples as something shameful and unpure for their peoples, but the cumans were mainly absorbed into local populations while some were given asylum in hungary. But some settled into what is now Southern Romania and Bulgaria and mixed with the locals. Much like what happened to a great deal of Crimeean Tatars, the ones that inhabitated the black sea coast, and the ones lower. I've known some people with tatar origins or even have their family name as "Tatar" while being from that area. Their ethnical identity however was slowly lost in favor of the domninant Romanian/Bulgarian but their influence and genetic baggage as a turkish peoples is unquestionable.

"the cumans were mainly absorbed into local populations while some were given asylum in hungary. But some settled into what is now Southern Romania and Bulgaria and mixed with the locals."
Basically that is the final scenario of the Kotyan Khan campaign...
Also, Kasim Beg, the loyal alliance of Ivaylo in the game, is also of Tatar (or Cuman?) origin.

[Gorilianul]

blauden97 a écrit :

Gorilianul a écrit :

Bulgarians like to think they are of iranian origin (when they are a turkic people). Kaloyan was still from the Asen family, don't know why you would sidestep that Ivan was the most important member who facilitated the rebellion against the Byzantine Empire and the one who contributed to the foundation of the first bulgar state.

Also Kaloyan had a cuman wife. The vlachs themselves many of them were of cuman origin, for instance the ruler Basarab whose name is a mixture of cuman words (Basar - to rule, Aba - Father). It is possible that even Vlad Tepes himself had some cuman ancestry. The name Bashar al Assad (Sirian President) comes remarkably similar to Basarab. There is something about Eastern/SouthEastern Europeans that like to deny the big cuman/turkish (both before and after the ottoman empire) admixture into their peoples as something shameful and unpure for their peoples, but the cumans were mainly absorbed into local populations while some were given asylum in hungary. But some settled into what is now Southern Romania and Bulgaria and mixed with the locals. Much like what happened to a great deal of Crimeean Tatars, the ones that inhabitated the black sea coast, and the ones lower. I've known some people with tatar origins or even have their family name as "Tatar" while being from that area. Their ethnical identity however was slowly lost in favor of the domninant Romanian/Bulgarian but their influence and genetic baggage as a turkish peoples is unquestionable.

"the cumans were mainly absorbed into local populations while some were given asylum in hungary. But some settled into what is now Southern Romania and Bulgaria and mixed with the locals."
Basically that is the final scenario of the Kotyan Khan campaign...
Also, Kasim Beg, the loyal alliance of Ivaylo in the game, is also of Tatar (or Cuman?) origin.

The Kotyan Khan is a good historically accurate campaign also fun to play, I like cumans anyway except they have weak defensive structures, maybe because they are a raiding civ, they get fast second tc and siege shop, I remember in the campaign where I had to take out the tatars while the mongols were constantly attacking but I didnt eliminate them totally out of the game so I could eliminate the mongols as well (that was not intended in the game as it made it really hard to defeat them). With Kaloyan the cumans fought against the Crusaders. Also against Byzantines. Something that also happens in the campaign last mission.

The Cumans were a turkic warlike people which eventually gave up their raiding ways and settled down and became farmers and livestock owners. Even though they were a glorious people and in Eastern/Southern Europe till the Ural Mountains they had a great kingdom Cumania which they also shared diplomatically with other nations, romanians, bulgarians and hungarians (more or less) their history got lost in the history of the named nations.

The fact that they lived in tribes made it hard for the cumans to unify into one big state, so they adapted to the later politics of feudal states and their people became citizens of Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Russia.

[IYI Кума Лиса IYI]

"Bulgarians like to think they are of iranian origin (when they are a turkic people)"
Thats statement is a bit passive agressive isn't it? From what I am aware the most liked theory is that Bulgarians are of Thracian origin. The Iranian theory or "Scytho-Sarmathian" theory how it is also known is probably the more plausable.
The Turkic theory has been on the mouths of academics for decades but has been disproven several times. Even recently genetic testin seems to indicate the exact opposite from a definitive Turkic origin. So no.

"Kaloyan was still from the Asen family, don't know why you would sidestep that Ivan was the most important member who facilitated the rebellion against the Byzantine Empire and the one who contributed to the foundation of the first bulgar state."

If you read my first post again, Kaloyan and Simeon were both suggestions for an alternative campaign instead of Ivaylo since he seems to have been chosen based on the "rags to riches"angle of his story which is most likely not even true. Simeon's rule was defined as a Golden Age and Kaloyan was military commander who engaged both Byzantines and Latins in a campaign of conquest with some pretty memorable siege battles, certanly better than the "swineheard".
Ivan asen was NOT the founder of the first Bulgarian state that is abjectively false.


"Also Kaloyan had a cuman wife. The vlachs themselves many of them were of cuman origin, for instance the ruler Basarab whose name is a mixture of cuman words (Basar - to rule, Aba - Father). It is possible that even Vlad Tepes himself had some cuman ancestry."

Cuman wife supposedly yes, also interestlngly she might've been responsible for his assasination. Vlachs being of cuman origin hardly since peoeple did inhabit that area before Cumans showed up. Cuman admixture probably.
Vlad being cuman, maybe but given some ties to Bulgarian ruling dynasties and the fact there are plenty of his official documents written in Old Bulgarian, this can go either way.

The rest of your comment has no baring on this subject, no idea why you bring up Assad as if it matters.
Cheers!

[Gorilianul]

IYI Кума Лиса IYI a écrit :

"Bulgarians like to think they are of iranian origin (when they are a turkic people)"
Thats statement is a bit passive agressive isn't it? From what I am aware the most liked theory is that Bulgarians are of Thracian origin. The Iranian theory or "Scytho-Sarmathian" theory how it is also known is probably the more plausable.
The Turkic theory has been on the mouths of academics for decades but has been disproven several times. Even recently genetic testin seems to indicate the exact opposite from a definitive Turkic origin. So no.

"Kaloyan was still from the Asen family, don't know why you would sidestep that Ivan was the most important member who facilitated the rebellion against the Byzantine Empire and the one who contributed to the foundation of the first bulgar state."

If you read my first post again, Kaloyan and Simeon were both suggestions for an alternative campaign instead of Ivaylo since he seems to have been chosen based on the "rags to riches"angle of his story which is most likely not even true. Simeon's rule was defined as a Golden Age and Kaloyan was military commander who engaged both Byzantines and Latins in a campaign of conquest with some pretty memorable siege battles, certanly better than the "swineheard".
Ivan asen was NOT the founder of the first Bulgarian state that is abjectively false.


"Also Kaloyan had a cuman wife. The vlachs themselves many of them were of cuman origin, for instance the ruler Basarab whose name is a mixture of cuman words (Basar - to rule, Aba - Father). It is possible that even Vlad Tepes himself had some cuman ancestry."

Cuman wife supposedly yes, also interestlngly she might've been responsible for his assasination. Vlachs being of cuman origin hardly since peoeple did inhabit that area before Cumans showed up. Cuman admixture probably.
Vlad being cuman, maybe but given some ties to Bulgarian ruling dynasties and the fact there are plenty of his official documents written in Old Bulgarian, this can go either way.

The rest of your comment has no baring on this subject, no idea why you bring up Assad as if it matters.
Cheers!

Vlachs are not of cuman origin but some which were supposed vlachs had cuman ancestry. Vlachs are what was the process of genesis out of the Dacians and roman colonial period. The Bulgarians have some thracian origins as well.

The idea was that people try to rule out cumans or other minoritary peoples in the past as unworthy or unimportant.

What other glorious figure do the bulgarians have outside Asen and then the lineage of this family? None really...

[IYI Кума Лиса IYI]

Gorilianul a écrit :

IYI Кума Лиса IYI a écrit :

"Bulgarians like to think they are of iranian origin (when they are a turkic people)"
Thats statement is a bit passive agressive isn't it? From what I am aware the most liked theory is that Bulgarians are of Thracian origin. The Iranian theory or "Scytho-Sarmathian" theory how it is also known is probably the more plausable.
The Turkic theory has been on the mouths of academics for decades but has been disproven several times. Even recently genetic testin seems to indicate the exact opposite from a definitive Turkic origin. So no.

"Kaloyan was still from the Asen family, don't know why you would sidestep that Ivan was the most important member who facilitated the rebellion against the Byzantine Empire and the one who contributed to the foundation of the first bulgar state."

If you read my first post again, Kaloyan and Simeon were both suggestions for an alternative campaign instead of Ivaylo since he seems to have been chosen based on the "rags to riches"angle of his story which is most likely not even true. Simeon's rule was defined as a Golden Age and Kaloyan was military commander who engaged both Byzantines and Latins in a campaign of conquest with some pretty memorable siege battles, certanly better than the "swineheard".
Ivan asen was NOT the founder of the first Bulgarian state that is abjectively false.


"Also Kaloyan had a cuman wife. The vlachs themselves many of them were of cuman origin, for instance the ruler Basarab whose name is a mixture of cuman words (Basar - to rule, Aba - Father). It is possible that even Vlad Tepes himself had some cuman ancestry."

Cuman wife supposedly yes, also interestlngly she might've been responsible for his assasination. Vlachs being of cuman origin hardly since peoeple did inhabit that area before Cumans showed up. Cuman admixture probably.
Vlad being cuman, maybe but given some ties to Bulgarian ruling dynasties and the fact there are plenty of his official documents written in Old Bulgarian, this can go either way.

The rest of your comment has no baring on this subject, no idea why you bring up Assad as if it matters.
Cheers!

Vlachs are not of cuman origin but some which were supposed vlachs had cuman ancestry. Vlachs are what was the process of genesis out of the Dacians and roman colonial period. The Bulgarians have some thracian origins as well.

The idea was that people try to rule out cumans or other minoritary peoples in the past as unworthy or unimportant.

No the idea that the Asen dynasty was Cuman is up for debate. But the Terter and Shishman houses definately were. The problem is when does ideas are taken too far.

[Gorilianul]

IYI Кума Лиса IYI a écrit :

Gorilianul a écrit :

Vlachs are not of cuman origin but some which were supposed vlachs had cuman ancestry. Vlachs are what was the process of genesis out of the Dacians and roman colonial period. The Bulgarians have some thracian origins as well.

The idea was that people try to rule out cumans or other minoritary peoples in the past as unworthy or unimportant.

No the idea that the Asen dynasty was Cuman is up for debate. But the Terter and Shishman houses definately were. The problem is when does ideas are taken too far.

To be honest I don't know if Asen was "really" cuman, vlach or bulgarian. He managed to actually merge all these people for about 10 years into one nation. That's the idea actually.

[IYI Кума Лиса IYI]

Gorilianul a écrit :

IYI Кума Лиса IYI a écrit :

No the idea that the Asen dynasty was Cuman is up for debate. But the Terter and Shishman houses definately were. The problem is when does ideas are taken too far.

To be honest I don't know if Asen was "really" cuman, vlach or bulgarian. He managed to actually merge all these people for about 10 years into one nation. That's the idea actually.

Well whatever he and his brothers were they styled themselves after Bulgarian rulers of the First Empire, spoke Bulgarian and refered to themselves as such. I mean dosent really matter in the long run given what they represented. Also given the fact they were already established feudal landowners with sizable fiefdoms, their families were probably there a while.

[Gorilianul]

The specualtions may vary. I am not a professional historian. I don't have access to official documents, archives and intricate histories of that era. One may only speculate that their name might seem turkic, while their hereditary origin is claimed by the bulgarians and then the western chronicles refer to them as vlachs because the pope would have them more associated with the romans that way.

I don't really know what happened after Asen dinasty ended it's reign, but once with the fall of Constantinople and implicitly the whole Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Turks had a great influence over all South Eastern Europe, culminating with the Hungarian defeat at Mohacs and almost taking Vienna during the great siege of Vienna where the turks were finally stopped and marked the limits of their tendencies for expansion.

[IYI Кума Лиса IYI]

Gorilianul a écrit :

The specualtions may vary. I am not a professional historian. I don't have access to official documents, archives and intricate histories of that era. One may only speculate that their name might seem turkic, while their hereditary origin is claimed by the bulgarians and then the western chronicles refer to them as vlachs because the pope would have them more associated with the romans that way.

I don't really know what happened after Asen dinasty ended it's reign, but once with the fall of Constantinople and implicitly the whole Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Turks had a great influence over all South Eastern Europe, culminating with the Hungarian defeat at Mohacs and almost taking Vienna during the great siege of Vienna where the turks were finally stopped and marked the limits of their tendencies for expansion.

"Vlachs" in that context come from the correspendence letters between Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III. The term there is used less to describe an ethnicity rather its an umbrella term used to describe Romanized/Christinized peoples of the Balkans, Thracians.Illyrians,Goths,Dacians etc.
The problem is that Romanian ethno-nationalists and a few bacwards thinking "historians"take this as card blanch that the Bulgarian ruling dynasty was Romanian therefore the Empire was Half Romanian, which considering the cultural influence that Bulgaria had over Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldova is assenine.

[Gorilianul]

IYI Кума Лиса IYI a écrit :

Gorilianul a écrit :

The specualtions may vary. I am not a professional historian. I don't have access to official documents, archives and intricate histories of that era. One may only speculate that their name might seem turkic, while their hereditary origin is claimed by the bulgarians and then the western chronicles refer to them as vlachs because the pope would have them more associated with the romans that way.

I don't really know what happened after Asen dinasty ended it's reign, but once with the fall of Constantinople and implicitly the whole Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Turks had a great influence over all South Eastern Europe, culminating with the Hungarian defeat at Mohacs and almost taking Vienna during the great siege of Vienna where the turks were finally stopped and marked the limits of their tendencies for expansion.

"Vlachs" in that context come from the correspendence letters between Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III. The term there is used less to describe an ethnicity rather its an umbrella term used to describe Romanized/Christinized peoples of the Balkans, Thracians.Illyrians,Goths,Dacians etc.
The problem is that Romanian ethno-nationalists and a few bacwards thinking "historians"take this as card blanch that the Bulgarian ruling dynasty was Romanian therefore the Empire was Half Romanian, which considering the cultural influence that Bulgaria had over Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldova is assenine.

The Asen dinasty is also included in the history of the first romanian states and nations but I would say by a marginal influence and not as important as Radu Negru (which appears in the 5th campaign by the way as ally to Ivaylo with Ivaylo being the short piece of history between the Asen dinasty and the following rule of the ottomans) or Basarab and don't know how much over the north of Danube their state extended which was by then mostly Wallachia but I tend to believe that they mostly gathered as forces for their rebellion, armies and new state that which was left out of the vlachs below the Danube and don't know it those vlachs could be properly referred to as "romanian" in any modern or archaic sense.

[Dugaul]

Love Age Campaigns sadly a few are bugged last time I checked random to anyone reading this would you buy campaign dlc? what didnt come with new Civs?

[IYI Кума Лиса IYI]

Gorilianul a écrit :

IYI Кума Лиса IYI a écrit :

"Vlachs" in that context come from the correspendence letters between Kaloyan and Pope Innocent III. The term there is used less to describe an ethnicity rather its an umbrella term used to describe Romanized/Christinized peoples of the Balkans, Thracians.Illyrians,Goths,Dacians etc.
The problem is that Romanian ethno-nationalists and a few bacwards thinking "historians"take this as card blanch that the Bulgarian ruling dynasty was Romanian therefore the Empire was Half Romanian, which considering the cultural influence that Bulgaria had over Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldova is assenine.

The Asen dinasty is also included in the history of the first romanian states and nations but I would say by a marginal influence and not as important as Radu Negru (which appears in the 5th campaign by the way as ally to Ivaylo with Ivaylo being the short piece of history between the Asen dinasty and the following rule of the ottomans) or Basarab and don't know how much over the north of Danube their state extended which was by then mostly Wallachia but I tend to believe that they mostly gathered as forces for their rebellion, armies and new state that which was left out of the vlachs below the Danube and don't know it those vlachs could be properly referred to as "romanian" in any modern or archaic sense.

And Radu also had ties with Bulgarian royalty.
Lets just not perpetuate this and spam more than is needed.
I think what needed to be said was said and hopefully it cleared a bit more for OP.
And again finally Simeon or Kaloyan would've made a far better campaign than Ivaylo.