ALEXANDAR NIKOLOV

CUMANS AND VLACHS IN THE SECOND BULGARIAN

EMPIRE

The foundation of the so-called “Second" Bulgarian Empire at the

Lower Danube by the end of the 12th century is one of the main political events
in Southeastern Europe at that time. This event has been interpreted in different
ways by the contemporary sources and also by different modern historians.
However, several issues are still subject of debates among scholars. The
Bulgarian historiography supports mainly the thesis of the continuity between
the First and the Second Bulgarian Empire, trying to minimize or even to omit
the role of two non-Bulgarian participants in the process: the Cumans and the
Vlachs.1 In the Romanian historiography there are theories attributing to the
new state a “Bulgarian-Romanian” character and even presenting this state as a
beginning of the Romanian statehood in the late Middle Ages. 2 Both
representations are or at least were influenced by the political conflicts of the
20th century, especially the issue about Dobrudzha/Dobrogea, the Bulgarian and
Vlach/Romanian minorities in the respective countries etc. 3 The paper does not
have the ambition to solve this controversy, which emerged obviously of the
fact of attributing modern specificities to late medieval realities. It will only
attempt to answer the following questions:
1. What were the signs of a “Bulgarian” continuity in the newly established
state on the Lower Danube? Were the Bulgarians well established and
relatively homogenous ethnic and linguistic community at that time?
2. Who were the “Vlachs”? Were they a clearly established community during
this period? Were the Vlachs only the “autochthonous” local population, or
1
See e.g.:Божилов, Иван и Васил Гюзелев. История на средновековна България (VII-XIV в.)
[History of Medieval Bulgaria (7th-14th c.)], София: ИК "Анубис", 2006, 421-423.
2
See e.g. Madgearu, Alexandru. The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second
Bulgarian Empire (1185-1280). Leiden Brill, 2015, 10-15.
3
Vásáry, István, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans 1185-1365,
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005, 41-42.

1
they were a specific social group with certain military functions and with
relatively heterogeneous ethnic and linguistic background?
3. What were the role and the contribution of the Cumans in the creation and
the following development of the new state?
4. Why the “Mixobarbarians” at the Lower Danube chose the Bulgarian ethno-
political identity during their struggle against the Byzantine Empire?
The paper will only raise these issues in an attempt to provoke broader
scholarly discussion on the pre-modern identities in the Balkan region and their
misuse by modern historiography in interpretation of later political events.

Question №1: The signs of political continuity between the First and the
Second Bulgarian Empire:
Concerning the first of these questions, one should go back to the
sources and extract the basic information related to the rebellious movement in
Paristrion, which could link this movement to traditions of the First Bulgarian
State and the attempts of the subjugated Bulgarians to overthrow the rule of
Byzantium. Firstly, do we have any evidence of preserving of a Bulgarian
ethno-political identity among the population of the former Bulgarian
territories in the course of the 11 th century? As it is well known, early medieval
Bulgaria suffered its final defeat by the Byzantines in 1018 AD. Its former
territories were divided in three parts, forming newly established themata:
Bulgaria, Paristrion and Sirmium. Obviously, the thema or the katepanate of
Bulgaria, stretching from modern Belgrade to modern Northern Greece and
having its centre in modern Skopje, was regarded as the core area of these
former Bulgarian territories. The area of the emergence of the First Bulgarian
state in Moesia Inferior and Scythia Minor of the late Antiquity, around the
former capitals, Pliska and Preslav, was somehow “forgotten” by the Byzantine
administrators, and even the see of the autonomous Archbishoprics of Bulgaria
has been established in Ohrid.4 It’s probably not a coincidence that both major
insurrections during the 11th century, bearing the features of Bulgarian

4
Божилов, Ив., В. Гюзелев. История, 343-359.

2
movements for liberations, were organized in the katepanate of Bulgaria. These
were attempts of liberation, led by descendants of the dynastic line of Tsar
Samuel (997-1014 AD)- maybe the last greater ruler of early medieval
Bulgaria. The first of them was Peter Delyan in 1040-1041 AD, grandson of
Tsar Samuel and son of Tsar Gabriel (Gavril) Radomir (1014-1015 AD)(
known also as Simeon-Roman) and a Hungarian princess He was followed by
Constantine Bodin, a Serbian prince from Zeta (modern Montenegro), also
descending partly from the dynasty of Samuel and crowned in Prizren under
name of Peter (the Third) (1072 AD). Both leaders received the name Peter in
honour of the prominent Bulgarian ruler-saint, and the first undisputedly
recognized Bulgarian Tsar, namely Peter the First (927-969/70 AD), son of
Simeon the Great (893-927 AD). 5The Bulgarian character of both movements
is generally undisputed by the modern historians with the exception of the
historiography of the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), where the official
theory attributes to the dynasty of Samuel and to both aforementioned uprisings
a ‘Macedonian” character. 6
Part of these features could be observed in the third major (and
successful) attempt for liberation of Bulgaria from the Byzantines, namely the
uprising of Peter and Asen from 1185-1187 AD. Our main source about these
events is the Historia of Nicetas Choniates, however, we have several
additional sources of Western origin, and very few domestic sources of later
origin. One of the main features of the account of Choniates is, that describing
the rebels he uses the terms “Vlachs” and “Mysians” and only very rarely the
term “Bulgarians”. It is almost the same situation in a set of Western sources,
related to the Third and the Fourth Crusade, coinciding with the uprising and
the first decades of the Second Bulgarian State, namely the joint rule of Peter
and Asen (1185-1196), the single rule of Peter (1196-1197) and the reigns of
Kaloyan (1198-1207 AD) and the alleged usurper Boril (1207-1218 AD).
Already during the reign of John-Asen the Second (1218-1241) the term

5
Ibidem, 395-407.
6
Антолјак, Стјепан. Средновековна Македонија [Medieval Macedonia] том 1, , Скопје: Мисла,
1985, 446-451.

3
“Vlachs” almost disappears from the sources related to the Second Bulgarian
Empire (more correctly Tsardom) and we find almost exclusively the term
“Bulgarians” for the population of this state.7 This specificity of the source
material, however, puts many questions concerning the “Bulgarian” character
of the third movement, the real or alleged role of the “Vlachs” in the events and
last but not least the big and important question of the Eastern Romance-
speaking population south of the Danube, the symbiosis between the already
Slavic-speaking Bulgarians and the Romance-speaking Vlachs in the frames of
the Second Bulgarian State.
On one hand, without any doubt, Choniates calls the population of
Paristrion with the terms “Vlachs” and “Mysians”. The description of the
events, however, demonstrates obvious links with the medieval Bulgarian
tradition. Firstly, in the fall of 1185 AD, the leader of the rebels was crowned as
Tsar in an imitation of the Byzantine ceremony, and his name Theodore was
changed to Peter, following the already established tradition, coming from the
early medieval period. Secondly, Choniates speaks about the desire of the
rebels to restore the unity between the “Bulgarians” and the “Vlachs” as it was
in “ancient times” and last but not least 8, when speaking about the testament of
Basil the Second the Bulgar-slayer, on one hand he uses Boulgaroktonos for the
emperor, and on the other hand speaks about a rebellion of the “Vlachs”, that
Basil the Second meant in his testament. 9
Obvious links to the Bulgarian medieval past one could find also in the
correspondence of Tsar Kaloyan and the Pope Innocent the Third. Here, the
Bulgarian ruler pretends for the title of an emperor, speaking about his
predecessors Peter and Samuel as rulers, who received recognition for this title
from Rome.10 One could point further Bulgarian ideological background in the
movement and the first decades of the existence of the Second Bulgarian
Empire, demonstrating at least a desire for continuity with the early medieval
Bulgarian state, crushed by Basil the Second. Could we suppose the existence
7
Madgearu, A., The Asanids, 35-43.
8
Божилов, Ив., В. Гюзелев, История, 429.
9
Choniates, Nicetas. Historiae, ed. J.-L. Van Dieten, CFHB XI:I Berlin,1975, 488.
10
Божилов,Ив., В.Гюзелев, История, 445.

4
of a pre-modern “Bulgarian” identity among the population of the Byzantine
themata of Bulgaria and Paristrion? The sources are scarce and not that
reliable, however, such indications could be found in several apocryphal texts
dated in the 11th and the 12th centuries, such as the Bulgarian apocrypha
chronicle, the Prophecy of Sybil etc. Thus, we could suppose the existence of a
already established ethnic Slavic-speaking community, which had the ethnic
name “Bulgarians”. It preserved some political, ecclesiastical and cultural
features, helping of the conservation of a memory for a glorious “anti-
Byzantine” past, despite of the nominal or factual Byzantine rule over the
aforementioned territories.
Question №: 2 : Presence and role of the Vlachs.
One should not neglect the obvious presence of the term “Vlach”
designating part of the population of the newly emerging state on the Lower
Danube. The attempts of the Bulgarian historiography to omit the presence of
the Eastern Romanic element during the Middle Ages within the borders of
Bulgaria should be explained with fears of further pretensions of Romania on
territories, such as Southern Dobrudzha, which constituted a part of the modern
Bulgarian state, since the Berlin Treaty of 1878 and which happened to be part
of Romania between 1913-1940. The mutual pretensions of both countries on
whole the territory of Dobrudzha, the questions on the Romanians and Vlachs
in Bulgaria and the Bulgarians in Romania, contributed a lot of one-sided
approaches, influenced by nationalist views. There were certain exceptions of
this rule, however, the questions of the common medieval past of both modern
nations are not readily articulated.11
One of the explanations is that “Vlach” could mean several different
things: a Romance (or Celtic)-speaking person; a pastoralist; a military
category during the early Ottoman times, probably inherited from the late
medieval pre-Ottoman Balkan reality.12 There are certain difficulties also with
the localization of the numerous “Vlachias” in the Balkans. In my opinion
11
Wolff, Robert Lee. "The "Second Bulgarian Empire". Its Origin and History to 1204", Speculum, vol.
24, Issue 2(April 1949), 167-206; 174-175.
12
Darby, Henry Clifford. "The face of Europe on the eve of the great discoveries', in: The New
Cambridge Modern History, vol. 1, 1957:34).

5
“Vlachia” in the text of Choniates and the correspondence of Tsar Kaloyan
meant the territory of Paristrion, and “Bulgaria” meant the former territories of
the katepanate of Bulgaria, roughly coinciding with the Bulgarian territory
during the reign of Samuel’s dynasty. 13Was there Romanic speaking population
at that time? It is difficult to state anything concrete for the population on the
Lower Danube at the end of the 12th century. The most correct view, in my
opinion, is that it was a heterogeneous “Mixobarbarian” population. There are
many Vlach or strictly speaking Daco-Romanian toponyms in modern
Bulgaria, and many Slavic toponyms in modern Romania, among them some
with undisputable Slavo-Bulgarian origin, bearing features, exclusively
Bulgarian. The level of mixture of both elements on a large territory stretching
on both sides of the Danube is such, that the capital of the Second Bulgarian
Empire Târnovo, Trjnovo, Trjnovgrad, has probably a Slavicized Eastern-
Romanic name, derived from “Turnu” i.e. tower. Toponyms derived from
Turnu or a Slavicized form of Trân, Târân, Târnovo, are available in other
places in Bulgaria and several other countries in the Balkans and Central
Europe, where “Vlach” groups are testified (starting with Tirnavos in Greece
and stretching to Trnava in Slovakia). On the other hand, the Slavic word trg,
târg (in Bulgarian), meaning “market” or “auction” is easily recognizable in the
name of the medieval capital of Valachia: Tîrgovişte.
These facts are coinciding with the existence of the military category of
the “Vlachs”, known mostly from the Ottoman sources. Where all these
“Vlachs” stricto sensu “Romanians” it is difficult to say, most probably there
was an Eastern-Romanic nucleus, around which there were attached Slavo-
Bulgarian and Northern Turkic (Pecheneg and Cumanic) elements. Thus the
disputed origin of the Assenids could be probably explained. They were
“Vlachs” in this sense, bearing Cumanic surnames (Asen, Belgun), having
Bulgarian political orientation and affiliation, which was by default anti-
Byzantine in the course of the rebellion and probably having Vlach i.e. Eastern-
Romanic ethnic origin. These Assenids and the “Vlachs” of Paristrion probably

13
On Blakhia see also Vásáry, I., Cumans and Tatars, 20.

6
served in the Byzantine army, which explains also the statute of the Assenids as
local small pronoiars and the fact, that they controlled a castle, “tower” in the
mountains, even before the uprising. Moreover, it was possible to distinguish
the “Bulgarians” and the “Mysians-Vlachs” as the respective population of
both administrative units of the Empire.14
The last big question, which could be discussed in relation to the
“Vlachs”, is the frequency with which the term is applied by the Western
writers (and some Oriental sources) to the population of the Second Bulgarian
State at the end of the 12 th and the beginning of the 13th centuries. Here one
should remember that the ethnic name “Bulgari”, “Bougres” etc, had a very bad
connotation as synonym of several heretical groups, such as the Cathars in the
West. Thus, “Vlachs” probably was also an acceptable replacement of the term
“Bulgarians” in the relations with the West of an Uniatic country, such as
Bulgaria at that time. The expiry of the term “Vlachs” from the Latin sources in
regard to medieval Bulgaria around the middle of the 13 th century is coinciding
also with the decline of the “Bulgarian” heresy at that time. There was also
certain confusion of both terms even later. Here I shall quote only one
characteristic example: this is the “Description of the World” of John,
archbishop of Soldania (Sultaniye in Persia) from 1404 AD:
Also further to the East are the 'Rassi", being controlled by the Turk in
the same way. Further to the North is "Volgaria" that was a nice country, but
devastated by the Turks. They have their own language almost like the Latin,
and, according to the rumors, they originated from the Romans.

Certain Roman emperor conquered these lands, namely Macedonia,

and a company of Romans, as they saw a nice country and took wives,
remained there. Therefore they are called 'Bulgari" from "lingua vulgarica
Romana". And they consider themselves to be Romans and it is clear from
their idiom that they are like Romans; and in the spiritual matters they follow
the Latins and the Greeks, and although they are neighbours of the Greeks,
they will convert to us rapidly, as we could prove ourselves.
Behind them, around the Great Sea or the Pontus is Volaquia, large
country. It is an independent country, despite the fact that the Turk captured
and tortured a lot of them, however could not reach its masters and others.
14
Ibidem, 18.

7
 There are Major and Minor Volaquia. The river Danube, largest in the world,
crosses this country, descending from ' Almania" via Hungary and afterwards
Volaquia and enters the Great Sea around Nicostomum, held by the Genovese,
and it means the Mouth of the Wolf, because while entering the sea creates a
lot of islands and estuaries.
They do not have big cities, however they have a lot of villages ad a lot
of animals. It is a fertile land, not so much with wine, but has a lot of water
and flatlands. In general, they follow the Greek sect, despite that we have a lot
of places of the Dominicans and the Franciscans and many Teutons living in
these lands...This country has to the East the Great Sea, to the South-
Constantinople, to the West- Almania, to the North- Russia or Lithuania. all
these peoples were under King Louis of Hungary, who was an excellent man
and ruled almost 50 years...15

All these assumptions are not statements, but only an attempt for
establishing some ground for a further academic discussion, trying to overcome
prejudice and controversies inherited from the past.
Question № 3: The role of the Cumans in the creation of the Second Bulgarian
Empire:
In the Bulgarian historiography Cumans emerged as “saviours” from the
“Vlach” topic, related to the origin of the Assenids, therefore their presence in
the events was not such a ”taboo” for the historical research. As mentioned
15
Гюзелев, Васил. Извори за средновековната история на България (VII-XV в. ) в австрийските
ръкописни сбирки и архиви, т. II: италиански, латински и немски извори.[Sources on the Medieval
History of Bulgaria (7th-15th c.) in the Austrian Manuscript Collections and Archives, v. II: Italian,
Latin and German Sources] София: ГУА 2000., 119-121: Item ultra istam ad orientem sunt Rassi, eo
modo sub Thurco imperatibus. Ultra ad aquilonem est Volgaria et fuit bona patria, sed devastata per
Turcos. Ipsi habent linguam propriam et quasi latinam, et, ut fertur, ipsi exiverunt de Romanis .
Quidam imperator romanus obtinisset illas terras, scilicet Macedoniam, quedam societas Romanorum
videntes bonam patriam, recipientеs uxores, remanserunt ibidem. Ideo vocantur Bulgari a lingua
vulgarica Romana. Ipsi ideo iactant se esse Romanos, et patet in lingua qua loquntur quasi
Romani; et in spiritualibus sequuntur Latinos et Grecos nisi quia etiam Greci habent confines, et cito
convertuntur ad nos ut probavimus. Ultra istos circa Mare Magnum sive Ponticum est Volaquia,
magna provincia. Habet dominium per se et licet Turcus multos ipsorum ceperit et tribulaverit non
tamen obtinuit dominium huius et ceterorum. Volaquia dicitur maior et minor, Per istam provinciam
transit Danubius, fluvius maximus in orbe terrarum, descedens de Almania per Ungariam inde
Volaquiam, et intrat mare Magnum circa Nicostomum, quem habent Ianuenses, id est os lupi, quia
intrans mare facit multas insulas et ora. Isti non habent magnas civitates sed villas multas et animalia
multa. Fertilis terra, modicum de vino, magnas aquas et planicies. Isti communiter sequuntur Grecos in
secta, licet etiam habemus plura loca ordinis predicatorum et minorum et multos Theutonicos habitants
in eisdem partibus…..Ista provincia habet ab oriente mare Magnum, ad meridiem Constantinopolim,
ab occidente Almaniam, ab aquilone Russiam sive Lithuaniam. Iste omnes gentes dicte erant sub
rege Ludwico Ungarie, qui fuit vir mirabilis et regnavit quasi annis quinquaginta…..

8
above, in the dynasty there were obvious Cumanic or Northern Turkic names,
such as Asen, Belgun, Boril (of course, there are also opponents of this view).
Cumans are constantly mentioned in the sources as stable allies of the “Vlachs”
and the “Bulgarians”, i.e. of the Second Bulgarian Empire, up to the middle of
the 13th century in the wars with Byzantium, Hungary, the Latin Empire of
Constantinople, the Empire of Nicaea and the Despotate of Epirus.
In the region of East-Central, and especially Southeastern Europe,
similar migrants frequently played the role of warlike and skilful military elite
from the Eurasian East. In certain cases, such as the cases of medieval Hungary
and Bulgaria, these migrants were able to create stable state formations, which
lasted for centuries and enabled a successful synthesis between the traditions of
the local sedentary population and newly settled Eurasian nomads. The Cumans
(also called the Kipchaks) formed the last large wave of North Turkic nomads
who followed the centuries-long road from Inner Asia to the Pontic steppe
region of Eastern Europe. They appeared in the lands north of the Black Sea
around the middle of the eleventh century, slowly pushing their Pecheneg and
Ghuzz relatives westwards. Later they played major role in the events in
Eastern Europe up to the Mongol conquest and even afterwards as a part of the
Golden Horde. The military skills of the Cumans made them widely popular.
Many Cumanic mercenaries were hired in the Russian principalities and they
merged with the local political and military elites. Such a case also happened in
Egypt, ruled by the Kipchak dynasty of the Kalavunids, which had its origin in
the Mamluk guard, recruited widely from the Pontic region through the slave
trade.16
Finally, after the rebellion of the Assenids, supported largely by the
Cumans, Byzantium was forced to accept a new political reality and the

16
See for detailed accounts: Pálóczi-Horváth,. András. Pechenegs, Cumans,
Iasians
Budapest: Corvina, 1989, 7–27,39–54 ; Golden, Peter. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic
Peoples: Ethnogensis and State-Formation inMedieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East
Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1992, 270–77; Rásonyi, László. Les Turcs non-islamisés en Occident
(Pécenégues, Ouzes et Qipchaqs) et leurs rapports avec les Hongrois (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 1970; Плетнева, Свеглана. Половцы (The Polovtsians). Москва, Наука, 1990.

9
emergence of a new “Bulgarian” state on the Lower Danube. This state was
based on the local “Mixobarbarian” society, which chose Bulgarian identity not
only because of the tradition, but also because of its anti-Byzantine content.
Being of Cumanic or Vlacho-Cumanic origin, the Assenids, despite their
clearly Bulgarian royal ideology, continued the active partnership with the large
Cumanic diaspora north of the Danube, even after the success of their revolt.
The Cumans, being mercenaries and allies, played a significant role in almost
all the successful military campaigns of the Second Bulgarian state. They were
also able to capture the emperor of the Latin Empire of Constantinople,
Baldwin of Flanders, in the famous battle by Adrianople (1205). People of
Cumanic origin were in the highest circles of the Second Bulgarian State -- the
royal wife of the Tsars Kaloyan (1197-1207) and later of Boril (1207-1218)
was of Cumanic origin; the Assenides themselves had clearly Cumanic names
such as Asen, Boril, Belgun.17
After the Mongol attack in 1241 the position of the Cumans in Bulgaria
was even strengthened. New waves of Cumanic refugees found shelter on
Bulgarian soil, slowly forming a significant part of the local aristocracy. In the
second half of the thirteenth and the fourteenth century one could find
influential Cumanic families to rule large principalities, vaguely dependent
from the capital Târnovo, with centres in Branichevo, Vidin, Krân-Kopsis,
Karvuna. Two influential Cumanic families -- the Terterids and later the
Shishmanids -- ruled the country as tsars almost without a break from AD 1280
to 1396. They were able to maintain a complicated alliance with the strong
Golden Horde, sometime interpreted as “Tatar hegemony” -- a term, which
does not present clearly the whole complexity of relations between Bulgaria
and the Golden Horde -- two countries with a strong Cumanic presence.
Thus, in my opinion, the Second Bulgarian state represents a mixed
model of how nomadic settlers could be integrated and assimilated into a
sedentary society. As in Hungary, the Cumans also settled en masse in the
17
Nikolov, Alexander. Cumani Bellatores in the Second Bulgarian State (1185-1396) - Annual of the
Medieval Studies Department, CEU-Budapest, vol 11, 2005, 223-229.

10
territories where the Second Bulgarian state was created. They formed not only
a significant, but a leading part of the aristocratic military elite, compensating
in this way for the lack of a fully developed local military class. Unlike
Hungary, there was no pressure or special legislation, which forced the
newcomers to take on Bulgarian identity. After their Christianization they
merged with the local elite without any difficulties. This is reminiscent of the
integration of foreigners and nomads in the Byzantine Empire, where the
acceptance of Orthodoxy was a strong step towards the Byzantine imperial
identity. The Second Bulgarian state -- a product of the social development of a
frontier “Mixobarbarian” society between the steppe region, the Byzantine and
the Latin worlds, succeeded in filling a gap of power in this problematic end of
the Pontic corridor for more than two centuries, until the Ottoman conquest,
which changed the political realities in a vast region for a long time. 18
Question № 4: Why these “Mixobarbarians” of Paristrion chose the
“Bulgarian” identity, despite of the heterogeneous participants in the revolt
and the foundation of the new state?
This in my opinion is the most difficult question, which should explain
the existence of a pre-modern “Bulgarian” identity among a large part of the
population in the Eastern Balkans. This is important, because according to
certain theories all the modern Balkan nations and especially the Bulgarians are
a mere product of a very recent development and emerged mostly as a result of
different propagandas during the latest period of the Ottoman rule, emerging
from the amorphous group of the “Rum millet”. The emergence of the
Bulgarian nation during the 19th century is explained often simply through the
activities of a “Pan-Slavist” propaganda and even as a result of the activities of
American Protestant missionaries. If so, one could not answer the question,
why the name “Bulgaria” was restored two times after long periods of a foreign
rule and long after the disappearance of the original non-Slavic proto-Bulgar
tribe, which founded the Danube Bulgaria at the end of the 7 th century. One
could mention here, that the medieval development of the Bulgarian state,

18
Nikolov,A. "Cumani Bellatores", 228-229.

11
church and ethnic community, lacked continuity. The First Bulgarian Empire
(Tsardom) has been crushed in the beginning of the 11 th century after an epic
struggle, described by Gustave Schlumberger as the “Epopée Byzantine”. The
former territories of Bulgaria became part of the Byzantine Empire for about
two centuries. Here we should try to find the first proto-national layer, mostly
in the popular literature of the period. These pieces of the so-called apocrypha
from the 11th –12th centuries were obviously connected with the popular and not
the official ecclesiastical tradition and probably widespread among the lower
classes. Here we could list firstly the Bulgarian apocryphal annals, The
Prophecy of Sybil, and the Razoumnik-oukaz, dated between the last decades of
the 11th and the beginning of the 13th centuries - the period of the Byzantine rule
and the restoration of the Bulgarian independence at the end of the 12 th century.
What is the connection between these three pieces? Firstly, this is their popular
origin and the main trends of the content. Here one could find a popular version
of the early Bulgarian history, mixing real events with apocryphal and
legendary motives, united in the idea, that independent Bulgaria was a glorious
kingdom, which had to be restored, and that Bulgarians were the real and only
keepers of the true Christian faith.
Let us start with the excerpts from the Bulgarian apocryphal annals. This
is a written monument, dated about 11-12th centuries, however, the oldest
manuscript, preserved today is dated in the 17th century. It is a compilation of
motives of very old apocrypha, originating in the early Christian tradition,
translated and adapted from Greek into Old Bulgarian (Old Church Slavonic)
language: The Tale of Isaiah, The Vision and the Comment of Daniel, The
Revelation of Methodios of Patara, The Vision of Isaiah, The Vision of Baruch
etc. Many of them are regarded to have been very popular among the lower
social strata, and according to some researchers one could identify elements of
the Bogomil heresy in their texts. Special attention deserves the introductory
“historical” part of the Bulgarian apocryphal annals, dedicated to a popular
version of the history of the Bulgarians. Its title is “The Tale of Prophet Isaiah
about how he was lifted to the seventh sky by an angel”.

12
 And later I heard voice saying to me something else: Isaiah, my beloved
prophet go to the west from the upper side of Rome and separate the third
part of the Cumans [meaning here simply pagans], called Bulgarians and
populate the land of Karvouna, which was abandoned by the Romans and the
Hellenes. Then I, brothers, by divine order came to the left side of Rome and
separated the third part of the Cumans [koumani] and later I leaded them,
showing [the way] by rush [trjstju] and I brought them to the river called
Zatiousa and another one called Ereousa. And then there were three large
rivers. And I populated the land, called the land of Karvouna and Bulgarian
land as well, which was abandoned by the Hellenes for 150 years.

The writer continues with a short description of a popular version of the

history of the Bulgarian Tsardom. Thus, the first ruler was Slav, probably a
legendary eponym, related to the broader Slavic cultural and linguistic identity
of the Bulgarians at that time and “in these years there was an abundance of
everything”. The second one was Ispor, or Khan Asparuh (Isperih) (circa 665-
701), the pagan founder of Danube Bulgaria:
”and he destructed many Ismaelites on the Danube….and after the death of Ispor, the
Tsar of the Bulgarians, the Cumans got the name Bulgarians, and earlier in the time
of Tsar Ispor they were pagans and real infidels and have lived in a great dishonesty
and they were always enemies of the Greek Tsardom. He created the towns of
Drâstâr and Pliska, and a big prezid [fortification from Lat. Praesidium] along the
Danube.”

The apocrypha mentions also with “the grandson” of Ispor, Boris,

obviously Boris-Michael of Bulgaria (852-889), the first Christian ruler, who
converted also the people of Bulgaria in 864/65 AD and who:

“baptized the Bulgarian lands and created churches around the Bulgarian lands and
on the river Bregalnica, and, here accepting the Tsardom, created white
churches….He ruled for 16 years without sin and woman. And his Tsardom was
blessed, and he died in piece with Lord.”

His “brother” Simeon (in fact his third son) created Preslav and he worked
a lot of miracles. And in the time of Simeon the taxes were:

13
 “around all the countries of his Tsardom - a little amount of wool, one spoon of
butter and one egg for one year. It was the tax from his land and from his people
and he did not demand anything else. And there was large abundance of
everything in these times of this Tsar Simeon.”

This idealistic description reminds even the picture of a Golden Age, often
represented with similar pathos, even in modern Bulgarian historiography. His
son is already the holy Tsar Peter “a holy and perfectly sinless man”. He was
also:

“Tsar of the Bulgarians, and besides that of the Greeks” He was ruling in
the Bulgarian land for twelve years without sin, or woman, and his
Tsardom was blessed. At this time, however, in the days and the years of
the holy Peter, the Bulgarian Tsar, there was abundance of everything,
that is wheat and butter, honey, and milk, and wine, and it was boiling of
every kind of goods in accordance with the will of God. And then, in the
years of the holy Peter, the Tsar of the Bulgarians, appeared a woman, a
widow, young and wise and very rightful in the land of the Bulgarians,
with the name Elena. And she gave birth to Constantine, Tsar, holy and
rightful man. He, however was son of Constantine the Green (Chlorus)
and of mother Elena, this Constantine, called Bagrenorodni (Born in the
Purple, Porphyrogenetus), was Emperor of Rome…”

And at the end of the story Tsar Peter is forced to leave his Tsardom and
to flee to Rome, and he dies there in exile. Especially the image of Peter as the
holy Tsar of the Bulgarians is so strong in the popular mind and in the tradition
as already mentioned that all the three bigger uprisings against the Byzantine
rule during the 11th and 12th centuries have their own Tsar Peter. 19
The unifying idea is the idealizing of the Bulgarian past during the
centuries of the independence, the stress on the favorable economic conditions,
being in sharp contrast with the Byzantine taxation (both bigger uprisings
against the Byzantines in 1040 and 1185 AD were provoked by introduction of

19
Тъпкова-Заимова, Василка и Анисава Милтенова. Историко-апокалиптична книжнина във
Византия и в средновековна България. [The Historical and Apocalyptical Literature in Byzantium
and Medieval Bulgaria], София: УИ "Св. Климент Охридски", 1996, 192-207.

14
new taxes), the idea of the rightfulness and the Christian legitimacy of the
Bulgarian Tsardom, and last, but not least the fact that they settled in the “Land
of Karvouna” following a divine order and soon abandoning the paganism.
I will quote here also passages from Razoumnik-oukaz, another
compilation from the beginning of the 13th century with still disputed roots and
origin, These are questions and answers on different matters, and probably this
text was popular among the lower social strata, too.
“Then, you brothers, should know that there are three Emperors in the world, three
like the Holy Trinity in the Sky. The first Empire is the Greek one, the second
Empire is the Bulgarian, the third one is the Iberian [Georgian]. The Father is in
the Greek Empire, The Son is in the Iberian, and the Holy Spirit is in the Bulgarian
Empire. The Greeks will transfer to God the Empire, the Bulgarians the
Christianity, and the Iberians, they also will transfer to God the Christianity.” 20

One could add more examples of unofficial pieces of

literature, demonstrating the existence of a pre-modern Bulgarian
identity among broader circles of the population in the territories
around the Lower Danube. The heterogeneous “Mixobarbarian”
population chose this identity and traditions, because they looked
glorious enough and anti-Byzantine enough, demonstrating a desire
for independence from Constantinople and giving certain
legitimacy of the claims of the rebels for an autonomous rule.
Slavo-Bulgarians, Vlachs, Cumans and other North Turkic elements
were united around the idea for the restoration of Bulgaria,
probably backed by political and popular traditions and memories
for the earlier times, which continued to exist on certain levels
among broader layers of the society and were accepted by the
emerging elite as base and banner in the struggle against the Empire
of Constantinople.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

20
Ibidem, 277-311.

15
 CYRILLIC:
Антолјак, Стјепан. Средновековна Македонија [ Antoljak, Stjepan. Medieval
Macedonia] том 1, , Скопје: Мисла, 1985,

Божилов, Иван и Васил Гюзелев. История на средновековна България (VII-XIV

в.) [ Bozhilov, Ivan and Vasil Gyuzelev.History of Medieval Bulgaria (7th-14th c.)],
София: ИК "Анубис", 2006, 421-423.

Гюзелев, Васил. Извори за средновековната история на България (VII-XV в. ) в

австрийските ръкописни сбирки и архиви, т. II: италиански, латински и немски
извори.[ Gyuzelev, Vasil. Sources on the Medieval History of Bulgaria (7th-15th c.)
in the Austrian Manuscript Collections and Archives, v. II: Italian, Latin and German
Sources] София: ГУА 2000.

Плетнева, Свеглана. Половцы [Pletneva, Svetlana. The Polovtsians]. Москва,

Наука, 1990.

Тъпкова-Заимова, Василка и Анисава Милтенова. Историко-апокалиптична

книжнина във Византия и в средновековна България. [ Typhova-Zaimova, Vasilka
and Anisava Miltenova. The Historical and Apocalyptical Literature in Byzantium and
Medieval Bulgaria], София: УИ "Св. Климент Охридски", 1996, 192-207.

LATIN:
Choniates, Nicetas. Historiae, ed. J.-L. Van Dieten, CFHB XI:I Berlin,1975.

Darby, Henry Clifford. "The face of Europe on the eve of the great discoveries', in:
The New Cambridge Modern History, vol. 1, 1957:34).

Golden, Peter. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogensis and
State-Formation inMedieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East.
Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1992.

Madgearu, Alexandru. The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second
Bulgarian Empire (1185-1280). Leiden Brill, 2015.

Nikolov, Alexander. Cumani Bellatores in the Second Bulgarian State (1185-1396) -

Annual of the Medieval Studies Department, CEU-Budapest, vol 11, 2005, 223-229.

Pálóczi-Horváth,. András. Pechenegs, Cumans, Iasians. Budapest: Corvina, 1989.

16
Rásonyi, László. Les Turcs non-islamisés en Occident (Pécenégues, Ouzes et
Qipchaqs) et leurs rapports avec les Hongrois (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag,
1970.

Vásáry, István, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans
1185-1365, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.

Wolff, Robert Lee. "The "Second Bulgarian Empire". Its Origin and History to 1204",
Speculum, vol. 24, Issue 2(April 1949), 167-206; 174-175

17