Bulgarian campaign is awesome

[Cryptic]

really enjoying it!

[Gorilianul]

Цитата допису IYI Кума Лиса IYI:

Цитата допису Gorilianul:

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.

Radu Negru actually comes from the north of the Carpathians to the south and he is from a region far too remote to actually have any consistent relations to bulgarians, I don't know the actual context in which he could have actually made an alliance with any bulgar ruler and I think the campaign designers just took him for being a wallachian ruler who coincidentally was in a close region and probably similar era and might have also been in hostile relations to mongols/tatars. Even so, Ivaylo comes off in the campaign as more of a vassal to him, helping him to oust his enemy in return for his support while also being a vassal seemingly to a mongol khan even though initially Ivaylo made his military and political stance as a rebel/fighter against the mongol rulership and eventually against the bulgar boyars. Ivaylo's cause was a just one, trying to fight the mongol oppression and then the abusive rulership of the bulgar boyars but he eventually got ousted himself because he became from a livestock raiser to a Bulgar Tsar and he had dealt with powers far beyond his grasp and ability.

The power relations in archaic/medieval feudal Europe were ones of inevitable sovereign and vassal where if you weren't one, you were the other. For instance Vlad Tepes eventually became a vassal to king Matthias Corvinus, even though he imprisoned him (unjustly) and to his Moldavian cousin Stephen the Great. And then Stephen the Great even though he had fought with Matthias, defeated him and almost got him prisoner, eventually became a vassal to him.

One funny line in the campaign is when the mongol khan tells Ivaylo to start fighting: Stop suckling your pigs and raid like a bulgar Khan!!!

[IYI Кума Лиса IYI]

Цитата допису Gorilianul:

Цитата допису IYI Кума Лиса IYI:

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.

Radu Negru actually comes from the north of the Carpathians to the south and he is from a region far too remote to actually have any consistent relations to bulgarians, I don't know the actual context in which he could have actually made an alliance with any bulgar ruler and I think the campaign designers just took him for being a wallachian ruler who coincidentally was in a close region and probably similar era and might have also been in hostile relations to mongols/tatars. Even so, Ivaylo comes off in the campaign as more of a vassal to him, helping him to oust his enemy in return for his support while also being a vassal seemingly to a mongol khan even though initially Ivaylo made his military and political stance as a rebel/fighter against the mongol rulership and eventually against the bulgar boyars. Ivaylo's cause was a just one, trying to fight the mongol oppression and then the abusive rulership of the bulgar boyars but he eventually got ousted himself because he became from a livestock raiser to a Bulgar Tsar and he had dealt with powers far beyond his grasp and ability.

The power relations in archaic/medieval feudal Europe were ones of inevitable sovereign and vassal where if you weren't one, you were the other. For instance Vlad Tepes eventually became a vassal to king Matthias Corvinus, even though he imprisoned him (unjustly) and to his Moldavian cousin Stephen the Great. And then Stephen the Great even though he had fought with Matthias, defeated him and almost got him prisoner, eventually became a vassal to him.

One funny line in the campaign is when the mongol khan tells Ivaylo to start fighting: Stop suckling your pigs and raid like a bulgar Khan!!!

Okay alot to unpack here. I will try and be as polite as possible.
Firstly, can you not quote the campaign? I've played it, I liked it (kinda) I know alot of the "controversial" voicelines
Secondly, can you not use the term "bulgar" in this context? Its the late middle ages, by this point that term is kind of superfluous. Just plain "Bulgarian" works better.

Now, firstly let me adress Besarab.

In a letter to the Hungarian king Charles-Robert d'Anjou Besarab is mentioned as the "son of Tikhomir".
In the late 80s the Romanians basically admited that Tikhomir or Tihomir was the descendant of a line of Bulgarian nobles from the 13th century named Litovoy and Seneslav. From here the more recent Cuman theory circles around and we already know that circlejerk. Remember Besarab was considered the founder of Wallachia pretty much.

Now Radu Negro or the Black Voevod, he apparantly appears in much later historical documents from the 17th and the 19th century respectfully. Where around 1290something he was a descendant of Roman colonists from the Carpathians and just swooped down and kinda created Wallachia overnight. Romanian historians today basically like to think that Radu and Besarab are the same people along with Tihomir. So you have a sort of triangle of confusion to the founder of the Wallachian princes.
If anything evidence seems to point very strgonly that Wallachian royalty (no matter the origin theory) really were just vassals and really friends to the Bulgarian monarchy themselves. So its not Ivaylo being a vassal its more like Radu is helping the Bulgarian pretender fight off the Mongols.
To further hammer in the point the franciscan monk Wilhelm Rubruk in 1253 describes Wallachi as "the land of Asen" and "wallachians inhabiting the lands of Asen", notably Tsar Michel II Asen of Bulgaria.
Some anonymous french letter from 1309 describes "Bulgaria as a vast empire though the MIDDLE of which the Danube flows"
The Itinerary of Bruge shows Bulgaria which has cities on both sides of the Danube, and thats from the 14th century. That playins in perfectly to the hundreds of geographical names and toponyms that Romania styll has that are derived from old Bulgarian.
Baically since the Hungarians were such a pain in that region Tsar Teodor Svetoslav basically started giving indipendence to the Wallachian (voevods which is also a Bulgarian military title) to act as frontier guards to the imperial core. They were extremely loyal and fought alongside bulgarian monarchs and despots for centuries.
Not to mention that the Moldovian prince, Vasile Lupu was literally born in Bulgaria, we know that for a fact. Guy was Bulgarian, he ruied in the 1600s.
Finally even though I dont remember details Ivaylo was most definately not a common peasant, rather an opportunist feudal lord.
The whole "swineheard" narrative comes from a Byzantine chronicle that might just relate to a boar on his crest or just used a deragotory term to de-legitimize his claim to the throne. Mostly likely Ivaylo was just an opportunistic Boyar himsel that just took advantage of the chaos to seaze power. I mean he kinda slaughtered people by the truck loads alot of the times. Hence my dissapointment with the campaign choice.
But communists love them a story about a common peasant becomming king and leading a succesful revolt to overthrow the aristocracy and stop some pagan invaders.

One last thing: Since it might become in issue, those facts about Wallachian/Romanian history are not there to twist the narrative, moreso offer a look as to how intertwined the history of the two nations was. True or not (it probably is true) it takes nothing away from Romanian national identity.

[Gorilianul]

Цитата допису IYI Кума Лиса IYI:

Цитата допису Gorilianul:

Radu Negru actually comes from the north of the Carpathians to the south and he is from a region far too remote to actually have any consistent relations to bulgarians, I don't know the actual context in which he could have actually made an alliance with any bulgar ruler and I think the campaign designers just took him for being a wallachian ruler who coincidentally was in a close region and probably similar era and might have also been in hostile relations to mongols/tatars. Even so, Ivaylo comes off in the campaign as more of a vassal to him, helping him to oust his enemy in return for his support while also being a vassal seemingly to a mongol khan even though initially Ivaylo made his military and political stance as a rebel/fighter against the mongol rulership and eventually against the bulgar boyars. Ivaylo's cause was a just one, trying to fight the mongol oppression and then the abusive rulership of the bulgar boyars but he eventually got ousted himself because he became from a livestock raiser to a Bulgar Tsar and he had dealt with powers far beyond his grasp and ability.

The power relations in archaic/medieval feudal Europe were ones of inevitable sovereign and vassal where if you weren't one, you were the other. For instance Vlad Tepes eventually became a vassal to king Matthias Corvinus, even though he imprisoned him (unjustly) and to his Moldavian cousin Stephen the Great. And then Stephen the Great even though he had fought with Matthias, defeated him and almost got him prisoner, eventually became a vassal to him.

One funny line in the campaign is when the mongol khan tells Ivaylo to start fighting: Stop suckling your pigs and raid like a bulgar Khan!!!

Okay alot to unpack here. I will try and be as polite as possible.
Firstly, can you not quote the campaign? I've played it, I liked it (kinda) I know alot of the "controversial" voicelines
Secondly, can you not use the term "bulgar" in this context? Its the late middle ages, by this point that term is kind of superfluous. Just plain "Bulgarian" works better.

Now, firstly let me adress Besarab.

In a letter to the Hungarian king Charles-Robert d'Anjou Besarab is mentioned as the "son of Tikhomir".
In the late 80s the Romanians basically admited that Tikhomir or Tihomir was the descendant of a line of Bulgarian nobles from the 13th century named Litovoy and Seneslav. From here the more recent Cuman theory circles around and we already know that circlejerk. Remember Besarab was considered the founder of Wallachia pretty much.

Now Radu Negro or the Black Voevod, he apparantly appears in much later historical documents from the 17th and the 19th century respectfully. Where around 1290something he was a descendant of Roman colonists from the Carpathians and just swooped down and kinda created Wallachia overnight. Romanian historians today basically like to think that Radu and Besarab are the same people along with Tihomir. So you have a sort of triangle of confusion to the founder of the Wallachian princes.
If anything evidence seems to point very strgonly that Wallachian royalty (no matter the origin theory) really were just vassals and really friends to the Bulgarian monarchy themselves. So its not Ivaylo being a vassal its more like Radu is helping the Bulgarian pretender fight off the Mongols.
To further hammer in the point the franciscan monk Wilhelm Rubruk in 1253 describes Wallachi as "the land of Asen" and "wallachians inhabiting the lands of Asen", notably Tsar Michel II Asen of Bulgaria.
Some anonymous french letter from 1309 describes "Bulgaria as a vast empire though the MIDDLE of which the Danube flows"
The Itinerary of Bruge shows Bulgaria which has cities on both sides of the Danube, and thats from the 14th century. That playins in perfectly to the hundreds of geographical names and toponyms that Romania styll has that are derived from old Bulgarian.
Baically since the Hungarians were such a pain in that region Tsar Teodor Svetoslav basically started giving indipendence to the Wallachian (voevods which is also a Bulgarian military title) to act as frontier guards to the imperial core. They were extremely loyal and fought alongside bulgarian monarchs and despots for centuries.
Not to mention that the Moldovian prince, Vasile Lupu was literally born in Bulgaria, we know that for a fact. Guy was Bulgarian, he ruied in the 1600s.
Finally even though I dont remember details Ivaylo was most definately not a common peasant, rather an opportunist feudal lord.
The whole "swineheard" narrative comes from a Byzantine chronicle that might just relate to a boar on his crest or just used a deragotory term to de-legitimize his claim to the throne. Mostly likely Ivaylo was just an opportunistic Boyar himsel that just took advantage of the chaos to seaze power. I mean he kinda slaughtered people by the truck loads alot of the times. Hence my dissapointment with the campaign choice.
But communists love them a story about a common peasant becomming king and leading a succesful revolt to overthrow the aristocracy and stop some pagan invaders.

One last thing: Since it might become in issue, those facts about Wallachian/Romanian history are not there to twist the narrative, moreso offer a look as to how intertwined the history of the two nations was. True or not (it probably is true) it takes nothing away from Romanian national identity.

Over and over you go again with some extreme premises where everything follows this line:
X and Y was not of Z origin, X and Y through my own personal subjective and extremely bulgarian biased analysis is...SURPRISE!!! BULGARIAN. All of south eastern Europe was...BULGARIAN!!! Well what do you know. We are all actually bulgarians. We are a people whom since the 10th century onwards had absolutely no significat or remarkable history or impact on the European Continent. Thanks for clearing it for me. It's as if the regions in the balkans had no population, language or forms of organising their social or political life until the bulgarians had arrived. Oh...wait...I heard this exact formula before, I wonder who those guys were, we probably know them both...
However both bulgarians and romanians never had any glorious history like the Holy Roman Empire, The Byzantine Empire, The Ottoman Empire and so on. Their power and influence is of symbolic importance and power only in the minds of their own citizens, mostly fanatically nationalistc ones. The Ottoman Empire dominated both Bulgaria and what were then the split romanian states for about 500 years of history thanks to the autocratic, oligarchic, uninspired boyars who ruled for their own sake and would have rather be submitted to the ottomans to keep their own rule rather than to fight and create their own strong states at the expense of their power, what eventually happened anyway as the feudal rulership of the boyars was abolished along with serfdom and other feudal political mindsets (well almost). The turks had funneled in their empire so many south eastern european slaves, both boys and women that they eventually changed the whole genetic make up of their turkish heritage and genetic background. Among many historical figures, Vlad Tepes himself had been raised as a prisoner, but in a very privilleged position, to the turks, and eventually rebelling against them and their rule.

The Ivaylo narrative kinda takes the path which the communists had legitimised, the poor, livestock raiser who organises a rebellion against the mongols and oppressive boyars (the colonial destructive capitalists and the conservatives). It creates the narrative of the underdog who eventually copes and defeats his nemesis (only if for a while). But that's not why don't like this context. Don't like this context because as I said, any of the Asen brothers or Asen following dinasty could have made a more varied historical context.

What I was wondering at the end of the campaign is how a bulgarian farmer ends up fighting the poles and italians when his initial enemies were the mongols and his own oppressive boyars.

[IYI Кума Лиса IYI]

Are you ok? You seem to have went on a speil there that wasnt really necessary or justified.
"However both bulgarians and romanians never had any glorious history like the Holy Roman Empire, The Byzantine Empire, The Ottoman Empire and so on..."
Right because any person on the Balkans wants to be associated with ruthless and warmongering state that treated half its population both as slaves and second class citizens and refused to update it's morals and political structure until it collapsed from the inside.

I was giving you an alternate perspective really, if you honestly think that baptizing half the known Slavs and creating a new alphabet for them is not a significant cultural achievement then I really cannot help you. There is more than just military victories and historical outliers to this and we are just now staring to fit some of the pieces togethers just barely due to the lack of knowledge that was lost centuries ago. Really speaking so broadly just shows your ignorance and how you treat and untire culture with such broad strokes that undermine it's historical achievements. It is laughable really, yeah maybe ther werent as "big" as the HRE ( with all of it's problems) but the were there and their achievements matter in the grand context of history.

Honestly it seems like English isnt really your native language and there might be a bit of misscommunication here, but frankly the passive-agressive tone leaves alot to be desired.
I have said what I wanted to and tryed to keep it civil, hopefully OP reads it and expands his horizon. Frankly I have no intention of continuing this with the tone the conversation is taking.
Broaden your own horizons, open your mind and stop treating a certain people so negatively just because they have a passion for their national history, it dosent look good on you.
Best of luck to you, now excuse me I got the new DLC to try.

[Gorilianul]

Цитата допису IYI Кума Лиса IYI:

Are you ok? You seem to have went on a speil there that wasnt really necessary or justified.
"However both bulgarians and romanians never had any glorious history like the Holy Roman Empire, The Byzantine Empire, The Ottoman Empire and so on..."
Right because any person on the Balkans wants to be associated with ruthless and warmongering state that treated half its population both as slaves and second class citizens and refused to update it's morals and political structure until it collapsed from the inside.

I was giving you an alternate perspective really, if you honestly think that baptizing half the known Slavs and creating a new alphabet for them is not a significant cultural achievement then I really cannot help you. There is more than just military victories and historical outliers to this and we are just now staring to fit some of the pieces togethers just barely due to the lack of knowledge that was lost centuries ago. Really speaking so broadly just shows your ignorance and how you treat and untire culture with such broad strokes that undermine it's historical achievements. It is laughable really, yeah maybe ther werent as "big" as the HRE ( with all of it's problems) but the were there and their achievements matter in the grand context of history.

Honestly it seems like English isnt really your native language and there might be a bit of misscommunication here, but frankly the passive-agressive tone leaves alot to be desired.
I have said what I wanted to and tryed to keep it civil, hopefully OP reads it and expands his horizon. Frankly I have no intention of continuing this with the tone the conversation is taking.
Broaden your own horizons, open your mind and stop treating a certain people so negatively just because they have a passion for their national history, it dosent look good on you.
Best of luck to you, now excuse me I got the new DLC to try.

Some people have only the past to latch onto because their present as absolutely devoid of anything that inspires greatness and success, hence some patriots/nationalists (also these ideologies are very romantic in the context of a liberal global context where the only thing that actually matters is the power/ability to acquire capital, assets, properties, etc. where your ethnicity, language, heredity, race doesn't matter, no one cares about it and Im not saying this with sympathy, Im saying this as an unfortunate conclusion).
Using my best english is not worth of struggling when answering to you.
Latching on to some achievements from 1000 years ago as "Important" is somewhat romantic, naive and extremely idealistic. Those achievements had their worth in a feudal era, latching onto that is extremely regressive/conservative. I don't have any sympathy for those empires either, in fact most of them are highly detestable, but it is they who had shaped the course of history, not tiny nations of slaves who are still used by Europe/EU as their source of cheap labour/modern slaves. But every empire has it's days and every past, present and future empire will crumble into the ashes of history and the ones who were humble and meek will even be better off than them.

P.S. I was never aggressive to you, but you rather percieve as aggressive anything that criticizes your patriotism/nationalism and take it as an ad hominem attack.