Talk:Dobrotitsa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

"In 1346, Dobrotitsa and his brother Theodore sent 1,000 soldiers to help the Byzantine empress Anna of Savoy with the intestine problems she faced." i thought that when you have intestine problems you need a medic, not 1,000 soldiers...Anonimu

As a matter of fact, "intestine" is perfectly OK as a meaning in this context (as "internal, happening within the state") according to my dictionaries. "Intestinal" is the adjective referring to guts :) Todor→Bozhinov 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it sounds like shit... Anonimu 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About "Christianised Turk": how is this possible for a Turk to aquire so high position in the norther part of the peninsula, having in mind the fact that the first Balkan fortress was seizad by the Turks in 1351??? If he was a Turk, then his father Balic would also be a Turk and this is even more ridiculous than the Vlach version. --Gligan 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you think is irrelevant, since the info is referenced with a very reliable source. But: the first turkish settlement in Dobruja was in 1263-1264, and the spiritual leader of those colonists was Sari Saltuk (he is said to have combined islam with some christian elements). And Balik is a turkish name... it means "fish"Anonimu 07:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is this reliable sourse? "Turk" is wery wide concept, the ottoman turks are simply one of the many Turkic tribes. According to the most-widely spread theory here, the Bulgars were also a Turkic tribe, so the name Balik may also be Bulgarians. The names of our Khans Umor, Omurtag, Toktu, Pagan... aren't day Bulgarian???????????????????????????????????????????? --Gligan 09:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One accepted by the academic world. here "turk" refers to seldjuk or oghuz. Some claim Bulgarians were Iranians from Pamir... But, anyway, this is the first time i hear about non-slavic bulgarians in the 14th century... Sabin and Pagan are very romanic names... Anonimu 09:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I also believe to the theory that the Bulgars are Iranian people. Some Bulgar names and words have survived even now. There are names such as Kubrat, Kurt, Boyan, -a, Sabin which are still used in Bulgaria. Here, yes this is what turk mean, but does the sourse you mentioned mean turk in the same manner? --Gligan 09:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expected that. A lot of Bulgarians i've met on the net believe that. An equal number of hungarians believe they are a sumerian people... not to mention the romanians who believe they are a pelasgian people... is Kurt russell a bulgarian? Of course, where do you think i got the idea?Anonimu 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt as an english name is spelled in and pronounced in Bulgarian as Кърт and has nothing to do with Bulgarian Курт. ...there are stupid fictions in Bulgaria which claim that we were the most ancient people in the world, we built the pyramids and the Shumerian civilization... and we laugh at it. But the Iranian origin is a serious matter. --Gligan 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is totally disputed and absolutely anti-guidelines with the article? I think you're going a bit too far... it is well sourced and even has a bit of undue weight (Christianized Turk??) If you could specify the issues exactly, then perhaps we can work on resolving them. Todor→Bozhinov 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly the statement he was of Bulgarian ethnicity and his navy was a "Bulgarian navy". I don't know about that "undue weight" .. EncIslam "is considered by academics to be the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies" ... and the fact that his brother, Balik, had a turkic name is supported even by P.Mutafcev in Balgari i Rumani v istorijata na Dunavskite zemy pp. 188-189, while the byzantinologist Gyula Moravcsik said in Byzantinoturcica I-II, Berlin, 1958, pp. 204 that it is Cuman, as did L. Rásonyi-Nagy in Valacho-turcica, Berlin-Leipzig 1927, pp. 68-96. John Kantakuzenes, even if he mentions Dobrotici extensively in his History, never calls him or his brother Bulgarians. Neither do Hungarian, Genovese or Venetian sources. the treaty between his son and Genova in 1387 refers to him as bonae memoriae magnifici domini Dobrodize, while the genoese document from 1360 linked in the article calls him pirratorum domini Dobrodicie (note the change ;)) ). A copy of Ekthesis Nea from the fall of 1386 calls him barbarian. By calling him Bulgarian the user just imposes his own POV. And of course there's the thing that Dobrotici and Vladislav acted under the command of Ivan Alexander (the hungarian king says in one document that he has given Sracimir in the hands of "Lajco" and "Dobratich", nothing about Ivan Alexander...)Anonimu 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've listed three possibilities for his ethnicity, so that's pretty fine I think. Perhaps you don't like "Bulgarian noble"? I understand that as "a member of Bulgarian nobility", not necessarily in the ethnic sense. According to Bakalov, Balik is "in all probability of Bulgarian-Cuman origin", thence the name (Cuman names like Asen, Terter and Shishman are not uncommon for the Second Bulgarian Empire).

But was it a member of the nobility of Bulgaria? He generally acted as a subject of the Byzantine Empire (receiving the titles strategus, archon and later despotus and even a pronoia-a feud- from John VI in feb 1347) or independently. So Byzantine noble fits better his description. And about his origin Iosipescu thinks as Iorga that he was vlach, while Barnea just lists the possibilities.Anonimu 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... if he seceded from Bulgaria, then he was a Bulgarian noble. Byzantine titles were quite popular throughout the Orthodox world at the time. Todor→Bozhinov 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't secede. His father did. Yeah, but where they all given by the emperor (or the regent) of the Byzantine empire along with a feud?Anonimu 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Ivan Alexander's command, Bakalov also supports that, and you have to agree it's pretty logical (what would force Vladislav and Dobrotitsa to drive the Hungarians out of Vidin and reinstate Sratsimir?) The Bulgarian Navy thing can be reworded, I wouldn't mind.
Vladislav and Sracimir were cousins... and according to Barnea Dobrotici wanted to limit the power of the Hungarians, which already tried to expand to the mouths of the DanubeAnonimu 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And... quite a curious change there is in the way the Genoese referred to him. Nice find! :) Todor→Bozhinov 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another dispute is his death date. The last mention of him alive is a reference to his fleet in a document (i don't remember if it was genoese or venetian) dated 15 february 1385. Anonimu 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Τομπροτιτζας"?[edit]

What is "Τομπροτιτζας" supposed to be? Are you sure whoever added it got the spelling right? Thulium 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% sure (the only strange thing is the initial T, since "mp" is read "b" in greek)Anonimu 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Where is the tonos, could you find out. "Τομπροτιτζας" gets zero hits in Google so there must be some spelling error. Thulium 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err... it's not a contemporary name, it's a 14th-century Byzantine rendition, bear that in mind. Would you please clarify what you think the problem actually is? Todor→Bozhinov 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. Even if it is a 14th-century Byzantine rendition it would still be used (as all other names from the period and earlier). It is my suspicion that the text Anonimu got it from showed only a Latin transcription of the name and s/he tried to change it back to Greek, but did so incorrectly. If this is what did happen, could you please give the transcription Anonimu please. Thulium 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was written in greek. What it's the problem with this rendition anyway?Anonimu 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. You don't normally see 'b' written as 'mp' in texts from that period (Boris is written 'Βόρης' and Lord Byron's name was rendered centuries later as 'Βύρων'; b was always written 'β'; 'mp' for 'b' is a modern innovation) and there is no accent. If it is written in Greek and you have the text, could you find out which letter it's on? Thulium 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, according to the article about Koine Greek phonology, b was already pronounced "v" by the first millenium ("Yet, it is not before the 10th century AD that transcriptions of β as fricative v or γ as voiced velar l are found in Armenian, which suggests that the transition was not general before the end of the 1st millennium; however, previous transcriptions may have been learned transcriptions.", while in the article about Byzantine Greek, most betas are transliterated as v, the "b" value for mp being attested too ("μπλάβος (blavos, blue)"). In the same book Balik is mentioned as "Μπαλίκας, τις, τοῦ Καρβωνᾶ ἄρχων" (note the v written as beta in "Carvuna")Anonimu 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I think I know about the history of my mother tongue. β was pronounced 'v' when the Cyrillic alphabet came into existence, how do you explain its replica in that alphabet? My point is that 'b' was still changed into 'β' into Greek texts and pronounced v thereafter, there are countless examples of that. I see you know the accents for τοῦ Καρβωνᾶ ἄρχων. Can you find it for Τομπροτιτζας? Thulium 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case when b was written mp. Do you have any proof that "b" was never tranliterated as "mp" in the 14th century Byzantine greek? I don't remember any tones on Dobrotitsas...Anonimu 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any proof I can think of, however I've never seen an example of that happening. If you're certain about the letters then so be it. The tones would be either Τομπρότιτζας, Τομπροτιτζάς or Τομπροτίτζας. Thulium 22:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only posibility is that it was on the iota and i didn't notice it.... Anonimu 10:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's on the iota. I've also found some exact sources for it: Kantakuzenos II. 584-585, III. 6224 and Miklosich-Müller, Acta et dipl. I, No 166.Anonimu 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Δοβρουτσά (Dobruja) derives from "Τομπροτιτζας". How exactly (see the β for the b)? I'm just asking you to double-check.Thulium 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The modern greek name is a late loan from Turkish, just like the name in all other languagesAnonimu 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced, so according to wiki policy it has the right to be in the article. Anonimu 21:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OR. See my previous comment. Thulium 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find a non-translated John Kantakuzenus' History and prove me wrong. Anonimu 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me in what part it is? Thulium 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, I think in III-IV.. the part that talks about the civil war....Anonimu 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian noble[edit]

To be a member of the Bulgarian nobilty does not require to be a pure Bulgarian. For example one of the most powerful Bulgarian nobles of the 13th century was Rostislav Michailovich, who was a Russian. So Dobrotitsa was a Bulgarian noble, despite of the possibily of being Vlach or Turk, because he and his ancestors ruled over a Bulgarian territory which was never conquerred so to be a despote of Dobrudzha he, his father, his grandfather and so on must have been members of the Bulgarian nobility. --Gligan 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a territory that changed hands several times between byzantines, bulgarians and other barbarians (the last being the tatars)Anonimu 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of the barbarity of Byzantines and Bulgarians, but as you say :) You know better perhaps... Todor→Bozhinov 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Byzantines were barbarians... ;) Anonimu 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... then you have a wrong and outdated notion of the Bulgars, who were an advanced civilization which used sophisticated construction methods, had an impressively accurate calendar system and among those who introduced the saddle to Europe. If you think the Bulgars were a stumpy Mongoloid nomad warrior-only people, then you're totally wrong: in fact, they were high-statured Caucasoid (+ fair-haired and pale-skinned according to Byzantine miniatures and descriptions) semi-nomads who were pretty good at many forms of craftsmanship and art. You guys really've got to get rid of this silly antiquated idea of the Bulgars. Todor→Bozhinov 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used barbarian in a general sense: steppe peoples who invaded the old known world, causing great ravages. Anyway, I don't think that drinking from skulls is something a civilized people would do... Why every Bulgarian becomes racist every time people talk about bulgars?? Anonimu 19:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking from skills did not happen every day, but occasionally, only when a very strong enemy was killed. During the icon crisis the "civilized" Byzantines burned, looted and plunderred their own churces and monasteries, killing the monks; the same "civilized" byzantines blinded 14,000 Bulgarians in 1014. So... it is very difficult to speak for civilized manners as we nowadays refer for the Middle Ages. Todor meant that the Bulgars were culturally advanced people. What do you mean with your last sentence? --Gligan 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, did you, after trying to insult my ancestors, call me racist? I was willing to tolerate this up to a point, but you seem to have crossed the line somewhat. Please tone your language down or I will have to be forced to look for further measures.
Your ancestors may have been slavs or even thracians, so you can't say i insulted your ancestors. You mentioned the phisical characteristic as a proof of their spiritual level, implying that their fair complexion is a sign of their civilization (pretty white supremacist if you'd ask me).Anonimu 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were Slavs and Bulgars, and possibly also Thracians and a number of other peoples. If you insult my grandma but no my grandpa, then you're still insulting my ancestors. And no, I didn't say anything white supremacist, this is clearly very far from what I actually meant and said. I was just explaining how wrong one myth is.
You're perfectly aware of the primary pejorative meaning of "barbarian", and still you used it, clearly to irritate if not to insult, so I'd recommend that you apologize. Particularly when you were proved wrong.
I have nothing to apologize for. And i was not proved wrong. Anonimu 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, what ravages did the Bulgars do? They arrived, they were attacked, they won, they established a state (not their first one) that mighty Byzantium immediately had to pay a humiliating yearly tribute to. Neat.
Yeah, the Bulgar just came, bought land from the locals and peacefully settled. And they were so nice to free them from the Byzantine savages and to help the locals rule themselves. BTW, that article says that Bulgars attacked first, while the Byzantines were fighting the arabs in another continent,.Anonimu 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The locals were mostly Slavs who concluded an union with the Bulgars, so clearly they didn't particularly like being Byzantine citizens. The Bulgars came and conquered that land, establishing a firm presence and easily defeating the Byzantines who came and attempted to drive them away... perhaps they were too civilized to fight, so they lost. Too bad.
Did you know Lord Byron also used a skull cup? [1][2][3] Todor→Bozhinov 10:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Does this makes Bulgars the first romanticists?Anonimu 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, does this make Byron a barbarian? Todor→Bozhinov 16:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dobrotitsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dobrotitsa&oldid=1206992948"