Cumans, from /v/:

The House of Shishman that ruled Bdin and from 1323 to 1396 the Bulgarian state was Cuman.

Arms of the Duke of Bulgaria (Vidin), (herzog vo' der wulgry Die haubtstat in d' bilgry haist budem). Armorial by Conrad Grünenberg, Parchment Codex, p. 72, 1483

That happened before the mongols

>and left little trace

Except, you know, the king and his private army.
But I get what you mean.

This flag has some weird variations lel

It does.

heraldika-bg.org/gallery_armorial.htm

...

Here is a very long pasta

In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherd tribesmen (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The irrational daco-romanian continuity myth is nothing more than a chauvinist "nativist" state-propaganda. This propaganda was born & started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" (A politically very active "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening & nationalism. The fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" served and followed strictly the romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. This propaganda is the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives , this national belief/religion became the central part of modern Romanian identity. Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.
Vlach (name for medieval & early modern romanians in European chronicles) was the latest nation who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe. The earliest romanian chronicle was Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century(!!!), who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia.

Due to the lack of medieval literacy and own romanian history writing/chronicles, the poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..

There are no material proofs (cemetries or vlach cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s.

There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 5th century to the late 12th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s.

WERE WERE YOU HIDING FROM THE EYES OF CHRONICLERS for more than 800 years dear "daco"-"romans"?

...

I've seen some turks.

The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike in the case of other neo-latin/romance languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin romance language, because there are not remained dacian vocabulary for the posterior. The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. Note: The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS. (Despite of this , average Romanians believe that they are also descendants of the "Ancient Romans") This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process. There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Longobards, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs later Slavs and Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 9th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /romance speaking population.

There are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s. However the roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlachs were often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles) There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans, the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania. Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM. Moreover, the old Romanian language was the only language in Europe which contained Albanian substratum. During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from the vocabulary of the romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full borrowed modern French expressions were adopted to replace the old ones. These new modern Western European (modern French & Italian) romance expressions and words simply did not exist in the era original ancient latin speaking populations or in the vulgar latin languages.

The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the brutal mongol invasions and attacks in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) Cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder prince Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
Since the 16th century the settled life slowly became dominant lifestyle among the formerly mostly nomadic-shepherd romanians. It doesn't sound a very civilized interesting and important history...

Sounds like both Bulgaria and Romania reinvented themselves away from the nomad past. Bulgaria replaced its bull head with a lion and started pretending to be German, Romania replaced its pastoral past with roman and started to pretend they are French.

>thread about Cumans
>Hungarian shitposting about Romanians

I said its a pasta Andru.
Read it, it's prolly a farleft romanians work

>thread about cumans
>posts are about romania, hungary, bulgaria
>cumans lived, killed and fucked in those places, and intermarried with these people

Seems perfectly normal.

If I'm not mistaken the official heraldry of the Bulgarian state was the yellow shield with the three black lions.

What about the wonky bulls posted ITT?

Most of them are attributed to the duke/king of Bdin/Widdin. The lion has been an important animal in the heraldry of Bulgaria, even today it still is.

Yes, sometimes the lions are presented as red, sometimes as black but you are correct

>lions
>are clearly devils

Well they clearly aren't and how do you expect a Christian medieval state to have devils as its symbol? Here's another variaton of the coat of arms.

that's the CoA for dobrogea in meiou + taxes
cumans are sarmatian steppe nigs, different from the turco-mongols or kipchak turks

>implying it isn't /twg/ and /mbg/

except the cumans became one of the hungarian protectorates, just like the vlachs and northern serbs

Romanians are not a Romance people, but a Romance speaking people. How Latin is a population whose main phenotypes are Pontid, Gorid, Carpathid and Neo-danubian?

just like how macedonians are slavic speaking but indo-europeans

The slavic language is an indo-european language, /pol/.

>anything not fitting my pol we wuz fantasy is far left

this is your brain on soy

not /pol/, but cool
>the more you know.jpg

the absolute fucking state of Veeky Forums

That's ironic. Perhaps you should use your soy soaked brain my red comrade.

I said "prolly"
>romanian shittalking about their own daco-roman theory
Now I'm wondering. Who discredits his own country? Is it a right wing nationalist, or a farlefty so called "traitor jewish rat"
Activates them almonds right?

dna posting autism should be banned, god damn

retard, im a hungarian you absolute spongebrain

>projecting le bogeyman instantly
Did we accidentally penetrate into your safeplace?

Akkor meg pofádat befogtad fideszes patkánygeci

>being this much of a faggot
/pol/ is an insult, like braindead, reactionary, knucklehead, knuckledragger, cracker and all those other insults over intelligence

So why are you calling random anons /pol/tards you megatardo?

Maybe because /pol/tard tend not to know aryan (german autism for indo-european) is a language group that includes russians and poles.
Its why the nazis dropped the term, since it was too inclusive for their needs.

I'm the guy he called /pol/ my point is I'm not going to get buttblasted by it

also would mean indians, which he praised britain for conquering

t.
Konok Péter

this guy?

haha milyen mérges a szűz

"a baloldali radikalizmusok kutatója"

Csak közben teljesen véletlenül ő maga is egy radikális forradalmár anarchista geci lett.
Nem baj, már alig várom a legújabb Szabadfogást

/balk/ crossposting ayyy

>"a baloldali radikalizmusok kutatója"
>Csak közben teljesen véletlenül ő maga is egy radikális forradalmár anarchista geci lett.
>Nem baj, már alig várom a legújabb Szabadfogást
"researcher of leftist radicalism"

All in all, by accident, he himself became a radical revolutionary anarchist gecko.
No problem, I can not wait for the latest Freedom

>the freedom
???

you said your a hungarian you faggot

Think this poster got severe autism. I mean not the magyar but you

no I didn't I googled him I am seperate from your convo

Now in proper English perhaps

Szabadfogás is a tv show where left and right both criticising the hungarian government
Konok Péter is a farlefty commy

Depends, nationalist Bulgarians support their steppe nomad past, while more communistic russophilic Bulgarians are more slav oriented

i dont get what you mean by pretending to be german

But shouldn't Russian-alligned people be Asiatic in their thinking? Russia is in Asia, and philosophically opposed to the western values and model. They are much more similar to China.
Also, nice contrast between the larpers and the commie blocks in the background. Is that a mosque tower I see too?

>Romanians are not a Romance people, but a Romance speaking people.

Don't be daft. You know very well that was the intended meaning, not something biological.

>But shouldn't Russian-alligned people be Asiatic in their thinking?
What is "asiastic thinking"?

>Russia is in Asia,
Russia is European

>and philosophically opposed to the western values and model
Id say Russia is more true to western values than the modern west in this day.

I got my answer kek

Ok, fine, if you want me to ask i will ask, what is the alleged answer that you got?

its unlikely that those figures are accurate, since there is only villehardoin's word to go on and he wasn't actually there.
i wouldn't argue that there weren't 100k+ cumans, but all concentrated in wallachia?

the stench of your torn asshole is what i find insulting here, pozlet

>its unlikely that those figures are accurate, since there is only villehardoin's word to go on and he wasn't actually there.

Well he was part of the crusade, maybe he had mates there.

>i wouldn't argue that there weren't 100k+ cumans, but all concentrated in wallachia?
Well the cumans fighting for Bulgaria would be from Bulgaria, I speculate. And back then Bulgaria ruled the area between the Danube and the Carpathian mountains, until the pass that separates modern Romania and Moldova. So basically what was later Wallachia, its a pretty naturally separated area, with barriers on almost all sides. The cumans must've come from there, since thats the only place in (then) Bulgaria they lived.

>And back then Bulgaria ruled the area between the Danube and the Carpathian mountains
Any proofs for that?

Wikipedia had a bunch of links for it, and I did read an ebook that was listed there. However, it seems recently these were deleted and replaced by:
>*The theory that Bulgaria included Oltenia and Muntenia, as it is presented in the map, is not universally accepted by historians.
>*Madgearu, Alexandru (2017). The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire
This is done in several articles at the same time, about the battles, kings, dynasties, etc. So I guess a new romanian book disagrees with what I've read earlier, I'll look it up this weekend to see why that is.
At any rate, Wallachia is listed as owned by, or vassal of, Bulgaria on all the maps in atlases and such for the time. The rebellion against ERE that started the second Bulgarian kingdom did occur on both sides of the Danube, mind.

you are retarded son

>the absolute state of this board

he did, but that doesn't mean they would be able to do a head count of the bulgars' cuman contingent.
the same cumans, by the way, would go raiding into thrace and the suburbs of constantinople after the battle, i expect the 15,000 figure was intended to communicate the impression of a great host.

unless they moved very far west in a few decades, into hungary & northeast serbia iirc, this was a different group than those who were settled in hungary by bela and later caused a lot of trouble about which i know shamefully little.
anyone with an actual understanding of the hungarian cumans care to comment? for the board's sake if not for mine?

this is an interesting sentence

>In a charter by Radu I, the Wallachian voivode requests that tsar Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria order his customs officers at Rucăr and the Dâmboviţa River bridge to collect tax following the law. The presence of Bulgarian customs officers at the Carpathians indicates a Bulgarian suzerainty over those lands

ithough the source for that is in Bulgarian, i dont know if it says which charter this is

this seems to be the secondary source for that claim
promacedonia.org/lm/gal/index.html
but its in some archaic slavic language
the author is hungarian, so there should be other versions, but i can't find them
so the primary link/mention is listed somewhere there, if anyone can fish it out

oh correction: this whole thing is just letters from and to the romanian sovereigns, they are just written in church slavonic? so one of those letters is the one you want

Okay, that was easier than anticipated. Its the second letter. Basically it says "I accept that these customs officers should take money on these bridges, but they should take as much as agreed, and not more than agreed, or I will hurt them. The other complains are outside of my station.", something like that. It implies that the person writing (some vlachian lord) is subservient to the person receiving (Iwany Raduly, some bulgarian king).

Last correction and I'm done, holy fuck. Iwany Radolu is the vlachian lord, not the bulgarian king. The king is Ivan Alexandar.

From what i understand the writer is 'Ioan Radul', and he is addressing 'Tsar Alexander'

>1375
>40 years after the Battle of Posada, when the hungarians wanted tu subjugate the vlachs, but got BTFO
Where were the bulgarians then?

This word is weird, its like Uyghurs - Wallachian. The person writing is calling the person ruler of the Uyghurs - Wallachian lands.

Not uyghurs, ungrovlachs aka transylvanians.

Its ugro-vlachs. Wallachia and Fagaras/ Amlas were callad Ugro-Vlahia

Aaahhh, ungar like Ungaria = Hungary. Got it.

No, no. I was wrong. It's Wallachia as the user above said. Ungrovlahia means the "Wallachia near Hungary".

Maybe the wallachian princes had high autonomy due to feudalism, sort of like these guys:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darman_and_Kudelin

>decentralized loose confederacies of independent infighting lords

Mehmet likes this.

Wallachian rulers also implied in their titles to be successors to the Asenites.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(voievodal_title_particle)

And we are back on point, with Asen being a cuman name and the Asenite dynasty probably being a cuman one.

Same as the house of Basarab, with the father of the founder (Tihomir) probably being a Bulgarian noble of Cuman origin.

I really dont believe this shit. First of all, Bulgaria has only 2 important cities in Wallachia, and not 50-100 years later Wallachia was an independent , decent force in the balkans that Defeated the Hungarians in 1330 and later the ottoman in multiple battles,while Bulgaria went under ottoman control for 500 years.
Second of all, there are very little bulgarian influences on the wallachian population(apart for some names and archaic words, literally zero bulgarian influence)

>Bulgarian noble of Cuman origin.
Top fucking kek.You Bulgarians are getting funny with this retarded WE WUZZERY.

>literally zero bulgarian influence
But Vlachs wrote in Bulgarian (church Slavonic) for the longest time. When I was looking at castles and that Vlad monument thing, they all had Bulgarian writing on it.
Anyways, you overestimate how long needs to pass for a country to be independent during the period. Before the Ottomans came to Europe, there was no centralization. All states were basically a confederacy of city-states, with the guy in charge of the biggest city-state being "king". The king wasn't even all powerful, lords constantly fought each other, declared independence, civil wars and usurpations were common. You could literally be a vassal today and be a free state next week, with an army and administration and diplomatic recognition.

The name is either Slavic (being a typical dithematic name) or Cuman in origin, gypsy.

ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thocomer
>Numele lui Thocomer este interpretat de unele surse ca o latinizare a bulgaro-slavului Tihomir sau Tugomir.

Not Bulgarian here but I'm Slavic and Tihomir sounds Slavic as fuck.