Tweet
I will give you this amateurs sources in quotes and my answers below each quote. Let's begin.
Medieval Slavic Sources Prove the Greekness of Macedonia
Their proof-Patriarch Euthymius of Turnovo(1375-1393)wrote about Czar Kaloyan;
So now the perception of the common imposter hellene nationalist would view this as a score, right. Right? But in reality this perception is WRONG. According to Professor Anthony Kaldellis and his book 'Hellenism in Byzantium' (a strikingly dubious title itself)- http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...p?t=542&page=4 the term 'Greek' would simply translate to 'Roman' (see page 111-118). And in the text above Macedonia and Thrace would be Roman land. The foolishness here on the part of the imposter hellenes is that the East Roman empire was specifically an ethnic 'Greek' empire. This thinking is in part also due to the fact that modern historians have made many errors in the texts they read or used nationalist sentiments to invent a "Greek Empire" where there never was one. An example of this can be seen in Anthony Kaldellis' book 'Hellenism in Byzantium' on page 114(note 220) where he writes the following;
That Vryonis refers to Byzantines as "The Greeks" throughout his magnum opus (1971) is problematic; that he makes the sources that he quotes talk about Greeks or the Greek nation (when they do not) is troubling. Constantelos (1998)155 calls Ostrogorsky's "two brothers" (the apostles to the Slavs) "the two Greek brothers". Elsewhere he says that "properly speaking the Byzantine Empire was the Medieval Greek Empire"(171). Yet not a single source calls it that.
And to put more emphasis on what the Byzantine empire really was read what by Marcus Louis Rautman says in his book Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire page 1.
The Byzantine empire was the medieval continuation of the Roman Empire,,,,
Joan Mervyn Hussey wrote in her book Church & Learning in the Byzantine Empire, 867-1185 on page 1;
Byzantine Empire was the medieval Roman Empire and throughout the middle ages its people usually spoke of themselves as 'Romans'.
We can honestly go on and on but the significance of the sources here, especially Anthony Kaldellis, is the fact that this Byzantine empire was a Roman Empire.
Their proof- In an anonymous Bulgarian chronicle of the early 15th century, we have the description of the Turkish invasion in the Balkans.
My answer to the above is what Anthony Kaldellis wrote in his book 'Hellenism in Byzantium'.
It is well known that the people we call Byzantines today called themselves Romans. (page 42)
The Byzantine's were Romans who happened to speak Greek and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans.(page 113)
This propagandist insinuates with his lame outdated source that the Byzantine empire was a "Greek Empire" and this was never the case. According to David M. Nicol in his book The Reluctant Emperor A Biography of John Cantacuzene, he writes on pages 3 and 4;
For as a citizen, an Emperor and a monk of what he proudly called the Empire of the Romans, Cantacuzene would hardly have understood the word 'Byzantine'. Nor did he call himself a 'Hellene' or a 'Greek',,,,
If Emperor Cantacuzene called himself a Roman and not a 'Hellene' or 'Greek' then it is obvious that Macedonia fell into the geography of the Roman Empire we call today 'Byzantine Empire'. The 15th century source I am sure states Romans rather than 'Greeks'.
Their proof-So even in Medieval Bulgarian sources it is well known in Macedonia is living Greeks. However Turks did not keep their promises for long.
Don't mind the horrible translation on the part of this cretin. That's not important. What's important here is how a 21st century nationalist/propagandist is confusing nationalism of today with how citizens of the East Roman Empire viewed themselves. According to David Nicolle's book Crusader Warfare volume I on page 167 he states the following about Byzantine troops;
Slavs who may today be identified as Serbs or Macedonians but at that time probably thought of themselves simply as Christians of the Orthodox persuasion. Such troops played a significant role in Greece and the western Balkans from the 11th to 13th century, as they did later.
If we were to play the game that propagandists like this fellow and his blogmates would want us to play then we can easily use ancient sources ourselves. Like that of John of Ephesus who talks about the coming of the Slavs in the late 6th century AD;
"An accursed people called Slavonians" had made themselves masters of the whole Balkan peninsula, including Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace right up to the walls of Constantinople itself..."And even to this day...they still encamp and dwell there...and they have grown rich in gold and silver,and herds of horse, and arms, and have learnt to fight better than the Romans, though at first they were but rude savages, who did not venture to show themselves outside the woods". Source: Sailing from Byzantium by Colin Wells.
And if we need to venture as to what ethnicity of the Paeleologus dynasty was then let's see what historian Roger Crowley says about it in his book 1453 page 46;
His background (Constantine IX) was typically multi-racial. He was Greek speaking but hardly Greek; his mother was Serbian and Constantine adopted her name of Dragases, his father was half italian. He described himself like all Byzantines, as a Roman, and signed himself with the proud and ancient title of his predecessors: "Constantine Palaiologus, in Christ true Emperor and autocrat of the Romans".
And to put the icing on the cake David Nicol states that the Pailaiologus Dynasty was far from being purely Roman. and that the Pailaiologi were descendents or Armenians, Hungarians, Italians and other latin speakers as well as Slavs. (The Byzantine lady: ten portraits, 1250-1500 By Donald M. Nicol page 11).
Where are there ethnic 'Greek' emperors or peoples?
Their proof- From the old Bulgarian translation of Manasses Chronicle a translation dating back in the first years of Ivan Alexanders reign (1331-1340)we find:
Sooooooo??????? What type of proof are they showing us here? It personally doesn't bother me that medieval Bulgarians conquered lands from Macedonians. History is history and you can't change it. However..... that is if those were even "Bulgars" to begin with because that term in itself is very interchangeable in history. See all the evidence here - http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...read.php?t=835
As for the source presented it doesn't offer any substance to what the nationalist/propagandist's agenda in trying to prove the "greekness" of Macedonia during the East Roman era. Another failed attempt.
Their proof- The Bulgarian character of Samuels state contrary to the illusions of the real Macedonian pseudohistorians is proved undoubtedly here.Similarly we can find the same source a little later;
This actually proves the inadequacy of this nationalist/propagandist's knowledge of East Roman history. The book Byzantium's Balkan Frontier by Paul Stephenson can easily explain the title "Tsar of the Bulgarians";
It is only to be expected that Samuel would seek that title (Emperor of the Bulgarians) to give legitimacy to his broad geographical powers....The practice of claiming the title Emperor of the Bulgarians ,therefore, had no ethnic significance.(page 61).
And we already know that 'King Vasileos' or Basil II was definitely not an "ethnic greek".
Their proof- From the "Bios of St Savva written by Teodosie Hilander (mid13th century)
So according to this source Kaloyan was Czar of Zagorion. When I looked up that word Zagorion Epirus pops up everywhere. So now he's Czar of Zagorion in Epirus? I thought Epirus was 'greek' for 4000 years???Strange huh. So does this merit that Epirus was Bulgarian for a little over a millenia now? If we used nationalist/propagandist logic like todays imposter hellenes then we can surely call it that. However reality dictates differently.
If we asked Anthony Kaldellis (Hellnism in Byzantium) he would say;
The Roman name, I have argued, reflected a profound transformation in identity and consciousness. We cannot just brush aside the most powerful and longevous political and national identity in history and assume that we can understand the Byzantine's better than they understood themselves.(page 113)
If we look at the link from the nationalist's site his source for his supposed proof is from 1860. If we read the actual source itself from Teodosie Hilander (13th century) I am sure it states otherwise (Roman). I don't think I need to add more sources than need be other than another ancient source.
The Emperor quickly chose to send Constantine, accompanied by his brother Methodius, justifying his decision with the words "You two are from Salonika, and all Thessalonians speak pure Slavonic."
Code:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10074367/Medieval-Slavic-Sources-Prove-the-Greekness-of-Macedonia
Their proof-Patriarch Euthymius of Turnovo(1375-1393)wrote about Czar Kaloyan;
He was very brave,then,conquered a large part of the Greek land,namely Thrace and Macedonia,the Tribalia and Dalmatia,in those added Neada(sic) Ellada and still Aitolia.
That Vryonis refers to Byzantines as "The Greeks" throughout his magnum opus (1971) is problematic; that he makes the sources that he quotes talk about Greeks or the Greek nation (when they do not) is troubling. Constantelos (1998)155 calls Ostrogorsky's "two brothers" (the apostles to the Slavs) "the two Greek brothers". Elsewhere he says that "properly speaking the Byzantine Empire was the Medieval Greek Empire"(171). Yet not a single source calls it that.
And to put more emphasis on what the Byzantine empire really was read what by Marcus Louis Rautman says in his book Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire page 1.
The Byzantine empire was the medieval continuation of the Roman Empire,,,,
Joan Mervyn Hussey wrote in her book Church & Learning in the Byzantine Empire, 867-1185 on page 1;
Byzantine Empire was the medieval Roman Empire and throughout the middle ages its people usually spoke of themselves as 'Romans'.
We can honestly go on and on but the significance of the sources here, especially Anthony Kaldellis, is the fact that this Byzantine empire was a Roman Empire.
Their proof- In an anonymous Bulgarian chronicle of the early 15th century, we have the description of the Turkish invasion in the Balkans.
The Katakouzinos came to agreement with Murat and they gave oaths and exchange written agreements which apply even today that Turks won't harm the Greeks,neither in Romania,nor in Macedonia in the century,and when Turks promised that things will be like that Kantakozinos left to the Turks the passage of Kalliopis.
My answer to the above is what Anthony Kaldellis wrote in his book 'Hellenism in Byzantium'.
It is well known that the people we call Byzantines today called themselves Romans. (page 42)
The Byzantine's were Romans who happened to speak Greek and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans.(page 113)
This propagandist insinuates with his lame outdated source that the Byzantine empire was a "Greek Empire" and this was never the case. According to David M. Nicol in his book The Reluctant Emperor A Biography of John Cantacuzene, he writes on pages 3 and 4;
For as a citizen, an Emperor and a monk of what he proudly called the Empire of the Romans, Cantacuzene would hardly have understood the word 'Byzantine'. Nor did he call himself a 'Hellene' or a 'Greek',,,,
If Emperor Cantacuzene called himself a Roman and not a 'Hellene' or 'Greek' then it is obvious that Macedonia fell into the geography of the Roman Empire we call today 'Byzantine Empire'. The 15th century source I am sure states Romans rather than 'Greeks'.
Their proof-So even in Medieval Bulgarian sources it is well known in Macedonia is living Greeks. However Turks did not keep their promises for long.
When Kaloyan was King at that time, in Constantinople,Paeleologus then Turks broke the oaths which they had agreed with the Greeks,and conquered the city of Kallipoils and the surrounding villages,took Macedonia and they started conflicts everywhere,and in the passage they look to exist their own ships in order to guard it,after they pushed and sent away the Greeks from the area.
Slavs who may today be identified as Serbs or Macedonians but at that time probably thought of themselves simply as Christians of the Orthodox persuasion. Such troops played a significant role in Greece and the western Balkans from the 11th to 13th century, as they did later.
If we were to play the game that propagandists like this fellow and his blogmates would want us to play then we can easily use ancient sources ourselves. Like that of John of Ephesus who talks about the coming of the Slavs in the late 6th century AD;
"An accursed people called Slavonians" had made themselves masters of the whole Balkan peninsula, including Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace right up to the walls of Constantinople itself..."And even to this day...they still encamp and dwell there...and they have grown rich in gold and silver,and herds of horse, and arms, and have learnt to fight better than the Romans, though at first they were but rude savages, who did not venture to show themselves outside the woods". Source: Sailing from Byzantium by Colin Wells.
And if we need to venture as to what ethnicity of the Paeleologus dynasty was then let's see what historian Roger Crowley says about it in his book 1453 page 46;
His background (Constantine IX) was typically multi-racial. He was Greek speaking but hardly Greek; his mother was Serbian and Constantine adopted her name of Dragases, his father was half italian. He described himself like all Byzantines, as a Roman, and signed himself with the proud and ancient title of his predecessors: "Constantine Palaiologus, in Christ true Emperor and autocrat of the Romans".
And to put the icing on the cake David Nicol states that the Pailaiologus Dynasty was far from being purely Roman. and that the Pailaiologi were descendents or Armenians, Hungarians, Italians and other latin speakers as well as Slavs. (The Byzantine lady: ten portraits, 1250-1500 By Donald M. Nicol page 11).
Where are there ethnic 'Greek' emperors or peoples?
Their proof- From the old Bulgarian translation of Manasses Chronicle a translation dating back in the first years of Ivan Alexanders reign (1331-1340)we find:
During the reign of Anastasius,Bulgarians started to conqueor this land,they passed to Bydinio and firstly begun to conquer the lower land of Ochrid and later all of it.
As for the source presented it doesn't offer any substance to what the nationalist/propagandist's agenda in trying to prove the "greekness" of Macedonia during the East Roman era. Another failed attempt.
Their proof- The Bulgarian character of Samuels state contrary to the illusions of the real Macedonian pseudohistorians is proved undoubtedly here.Similarly we can find the same source a little later;
This King Vasileos Crashed Samuoil,Char of Bulgars,twice and conquered Bydinio and Pliska and the great Preslava and the small one,and many other cities.
It is only to be expected that Samuel would seek that title (Emperor of the Bulgarians) to give legitimacy to his broad geographical powers....The practice of claiming the title Emperor of the Bulgarians ,therefore, had no ethnic significance.(page 61).
And we already know that 'King Vasileos' or Basil II was definitely not an "ethnic greek".
Their proof- From the "Bios of St Savva written by Teodosie Hilander (mid13th century)
This Kaloyan,Tsar of Zagorion moved and destroyed many Greek cities in the entire Thrace and Macedonia.
If we asked Anthony Kaldellis (Hellnism in Byzantium) he would say;
The Roman name, I have argued, reflected a profound transformation in identity and consciousness. We cannot just brush aside the most powerful and longevous political and national identity in history and assume that we can understand the Byzantine's better than they understood themselves.(page 113)
If we look at the link from the nationalist's site his source for his supposed proof is from 1860. If we read the actual source itself from Teodosie Hilander (13th century) I am sure it states otherwise (Roman). I don't think I need to add more sources than need be other than another ancient source.
The Emperor quickly chose to send Constantine, accompanied by his brother Methodius, justifying his decision with the words "You two are from Salonika, and all Thessalonians speak pure Slavonic."
where are you diging? oi over here. Down under is where you will find Alexander the Greats Tomb. hahahahahahaha.
Comment